Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
How is any of this consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and why doesn't someone judicially review it (or someone convicted and sentenced on these guidelines appeal on grounds of discrimination)?
Isn't the Equality Act and similar legislation explicitly designed to exclude the people deemed to constitute the majority group from its protection?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
So go tell us a few things that your Tories actually got right, during their long period in power?
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
How is any of this consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and why doesn't someone judicially review it (or someone convicted and sentenced on these guidelines appeal on grounds of discrimination)?
Isn't the Equality Act and similar legislation explicitly designed to exclude the people deemed to constitute the majority group from its protection?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
Are you sure Jenrick isn't being disingenuous, although excluding crims who are white and Christian from under the umbrella does seem clumsy.
Excluding white, straight, Christian male villains from a pre sentencing reporting was probably erroneous.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.
For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)
OGH * was nearly an oligarch? That's a turn up !
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
(Snip)
Ahem. As perhaps PB's most typical 'centrist dad', I've pointed out a fair few times over the years that Russia would be looking to fund anti-fracking and general environmental groups. The response to which was often: "But they're an oil and gas power! Why would they try to stop oil and gas extraction?"
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)
Well good for you, though I am not sure they would ever push pro-UK hydrocarbon messaging.
Not only am I pro-oil and gas; I'm pro-nuclear *and* pro-renewables. Whatever we need to do to get short- and long-term energy security whilst improving the environment.
And yes, this will cost.
This is the problem with the categorising shite like "centrist dads". It just create a bogus group that is not really a firm grouping, but a nebulous cloud of people with vaguely similar views who may disagree vehemently on many things. But the labeling is handy for people who want something to criticise.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
How is any of this consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and why doesn't someone judicially review it (or someone convicted and sentenced on these guidelines appeal on grounds of discrimination)?
Isn't the Equality Act and similar legislation explicitly designed to exclude the people deemed to constitute the majority group from its protection?
Men are a minority group in most nations
For two roughly equal cohorts, men are indeed disproportionately more likely to face jail than women in the UK.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.
For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)
OGH * was nearly an oligarch? That's a turn up !
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
(Snip)
Ahem. As perhaps PB's most typical 'centrist dad', I've pointed out a fair few times over the years that Russia would be looking to fund anti-fracking and general environmental groups. The response to which was often: "But they're an oil and gas power! Why would they try to stop oil and gas extraction?"
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)
Well good for you, though I am not sure they would ever push pro-UK hydrocarbon messaging.
Not only am I pro-oil and gas; I'm pro-nuclear *and* pro-renewables. Whatever we need to do to get short- and long-term energy security whilst improving the environment.
And yes, this will cost.
This is the problem with the categorising shite like "centrist dads". It just create a bogus group that is not really a firm grouping, but a nebulous cloud of people with vaguely similar views who may disagree vehemently on many things. But the labeling is handy for people who want something to criticise.
I am also pro-oil, as well as pro-nuclear and pro-renewables. There is nothing remotely contradictory about supporting the extraction of British oil as we transition away from oil dependency.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Liberal democracy is best of breed, no question. The tweak it needs (imo) to become the ultimate forever system is more focus on reducing inequality. Otherwise it becomes vulnerable to the stunted aspirations of too many people. People who are ripe for exploitation by charlatans, extremists and rich shadowy men.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
How is any of this consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and why doesn't someone judicially review it (or someone convicted and sentenced on these guidelines appeal on grounds of discrimination)?
Isn't the Equality Act and similar legislation explicitly designed to exclude the people deemed to constitute the majority group from its protection?
No. The key section is 13(1), which is:
A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
There are some exceptions, and notably disabled people *can* be treated more favourably than non-disabled ones as a group, but that's the only category exception. Beyond that, and exceptions for legitimate / proportionate reasons, it applies equally to all groups within each identity category.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If only there was some way Sen. Young could at the time have foreseen that reassurances he was receiving were worth diddly squat.
"Sen. Todd Young (Ind.), the lead Republican on the CHIPS and Science Act, said Trump’s demand to repeal the law caught him by surprise, especially after he sought assurances from Trump’s Cabinet nominees about keeping the law and its priorities in place.
“I have to admit I was surprised,” he said, adding that he received “reassurances” privately and publicly from Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Young said he sought those reassurances “in order to be supportive of certain nominees.”
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his claim is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I documented yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a story around their hot buttons.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows he is being deliberately misleading.
They don't go to the same church as the people he is trying to lie to...
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
So go tell us a few things that your Tories actually got right, during their long period in power?
They made plenty of mistakes as are Labour now in managing the economy
Indeed all parties make mistakes - what happened with the Lib Dems and tuition fees
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Afternoon all. Spent the morning away from here (hiss, boo) but 'attending' a fascinating Zoom presentation on "Growing Up Human: The Evolution of Childhood" by a Lecturer in Archeology at UCLAN organised by the Third Age Trust. They do a fascinating series of lectures on all sorts of topics particularly those retired or almost retired. I didn't know, for example, about the importance of teeth in the archeological examination in the examination of early human and pre-human remains.
If only there was some way Sen. Young could at the time have foreseen that reassurances he was receiving were worth diddly squat.
"Sen. Todd Young (Ind.), the lead Republican on the CHIPS and Science Act, said Trump’s demand to repeal the law caught him by surprise, especially after he sought assurances from Trump’s Cabinet nominees about keeping the law and its priorities in place.
“I have to admit I was surprised,” he said, adding that he received “reassurances” privately and publicly from Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Young said he sought those reassurances “in order to be supportive of certain nominees.”
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Please specify:
1) What these meetings were where they "stayed silent" Reminder - they were not to set sentencing guidelines because that was done in a review ending in February 2024
2) What they were supposed to advise Mahmood to do. Reminder - the SofS has No Legal Power to do anything
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Liberal democracy is best of breed, no question. The tweak it needs (imo) to become the ultimate forever system is more focus on reducing inequality. Otherwise it becomes vulnerable to the stunted aspirations of too many people. People who are ripe for exploitation by charlatans, extremists and rich shadowy men.
Should rich ex-city accountants (and their overly generous pensions) be targets of this type of redistribution?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Rochdale Pioneers is pro Musk?
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.
I'm not pro Musk. I've been attacking him on YouTube for months. Much to the upset of the fanbois.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his claim is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I documented yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a story around their hot buttons.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows he is being deliberately misleading.
They don't go to the same church as the people he is trying to lie to...
I think most of the people he is trying to talk to are unlikely to go to church anyway, except at the margins - perhaps some of the independent churches or those highly traditionalist ones with the likes of "Father" Calvin Robinson (he of the fascists salute) involved may.
He's making the same mistake they all make who are trying to bring Trumpvangelical or Integralist Roman Catholic stuff across the pond.
Very few here will fall for it, as Christendom no longer exists here unlike in the South of the USA, which reduces the trend to going to church for social or reputational reasons. These days most go because they mean it. (Getting into a faith school may be one exception in some places.)
Nor as a society are we generally unequal enough or rich enough to need a Prosperity Gospel to divert our consciences from cutting hugely significant chunks out of our Bibles (see Bishop Budde's comments and how Trump / Vance and their followers reacted). And that means anyone in churches gets input from elsewhere are well, and are generally quite committed to social action. Even traditionalist evangelicals and catholics are likely to align more with the Sermon on the Mount than they will with Christian Nativism.
He'd have had a chance in Victorian times, but we lost Christendom as an overarching framework roughly after the shock of WW1.
There are elements of the Right / Far Right using essentially "crusader" imagery (drawn partly from football supporters, partly from Tommy Robinson type sources), but they are not mainstream. As seen in the flags at Tommy Robinson's big day at Trafalgar Square last July (iirc).
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Please specify:
1) What these meetings were where they "stayed silent" Reminder - they were not to set sentencing guidelines because that was done in a review ending in February 2024
2) What they were supposed to advise Mahmood to do. Reminder - the SofS has No Legal Power to do anything
The three meetings discussed these changes without any objections raised by the Labour representative nor was Mahmood advised
Mahmood agrees they are unaceptable and it will be her responsibility to address the issue
It also appears Jenrick is to challenge the decisions in court
As a matter of interest do you agree the decisions are wrong and need to be addressed?
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
I understand the problem of bias that the guidelines are intented to solve and sympathise with their objective but the chosen means looks like an excessively blunt instrument, and one that could introduce new biases. It's important that everyone has faith in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system. They should think again.
Surely the easiest remedy is to ensure that all offenders have a pre sentence report? If it's true that the categories for whom it's currently recommended cover the majority anyway then the overhead wouldn't be that great.
PSRs are meant to focus on those who might get a custodial sentence of 2 years or less and are first time offenders and are therefore eligible for a suspended sentence order or community service
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
So go tell us a few things that your Tories actually got right, during their long period in power?
They made plenty of mistakes as are Labour now in managing the economy
Indeed all parties make mistakes - what happened with the Lib Dems and tuition fees
He who is without sin first cast the stone
Mistakes is off topic. I simply asked you for some things they got right?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
It was found to be complete shite, as one of the biggest causes of crime is that there's no negative consequences.
If France extends its nuclear umbrella to E Europe, maybe the UK's could cover Ireland?
France's independent nuclear umbrella will likely eventually include all EU members, so include Ireland but not the UK.
The UK's 'bridge between the US and EU' until 2029 will likely end up therefore being Sir Keir being forced to choose between the 2 to some degree and hoping he avoids most of the tariffs Trump likely imposes on EU imports next months and sucks up to Trump enough with the state visit etc to ensure he still allows Trident to work (though whether it is reliant on US controlled infrastructure or also independent like the French deterrent is debateable). If we offer its coverage to Canada, as well as Australia and NZ we would hope it is the latter
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.
For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)
OGH * was nearly an oligarch? That's a turn up !
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
(Snip)
Ahem. As perhaps PB's most typical 'centrist dad', I've pointed out a fair few times over the years that Russia would be looking to fund anti-fracking and general environmental groups. The response to which was often: "But they're an oil and gas power! Why would they try to stop oil and gas extraction?"
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)
Well good for you, though I am not sure they would ever push pro-UK hydrocarbon messaging.
Not only am I pro-oil and gas; I'm pro-nuclear *and* pro-renewables. Whatever we need to do to get short- and long-term energy security whilst improving the environment.
And yes, this will cost.
This is the problem with the categorising shite like "centrist dads". It just create a bogus group that is not really a firm grouping, but a nebulous cloud of people with vaguely similar views who may disagree vehemently on many things. But the labeling is handy for people who want something to criticise.
I am similar, albeit I'm sceptical about nuclear's ability to be either particularly reliable or particularly cheap.
Nevertheless, if there's one thing the last four years have taught us, it's that a little bit of energy diversification is cheap insurance.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
Well giving some of the population lesser sentences because of their skin colour is hardly going to be tough on the causes of crime is it?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
Well giving some of the population lesser sentences because of their skin colour is hardly going to be tough on the causes of crime is it?
Also, lesser sentences because of their faith - eg and ie Islam
There is some chatter that these guidelines have been in place for quite a while, and all this latest update has done is codify them a little too explicitly, making the two tier nature far too blatant. Hence the stramash now
IF this is true, then it would explain - perhaps - some of the more outrageous sentences we have seen in recent years, With, say, child rapists (of the preferred religion or race) getting remarkably short jail terms
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
So go tell us a few things that your Tories actually got right, during their long period in power?
They made plenty of mistakes as are Labour now in managing the economy
Indeed all parties make mistakes - what happened with the Lib Dems and tuition fees
He who is without sin first cast the stone
Mistakes is off topic. I simply asked you for some things they got right?
My recollection is that Steve Webb, when LibDem Pensions Minister, was held to have done a reasonable job.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
So go tell us a few things that your Tories actually got right, during their long period in power?
They made plenty of mistakes as are Labour now in managing the economy
Indeed all parties make mistakes - what happened with the Lib Dems and tuition fees
He who is without sin first cast the stone
Mistakes is off topic. I simply asked you for some things they got right?
I am pleased we have left the EU even if it has problems but more so in view of the dramatic change following Trump's inauguration and it does provide a bridge between the US and EU which Starmer seems to be using well
Also they dealt with covid better than the opposition wouod have as they wanted to keep us all in lockdown for much longer and certainly Johnson dealt with Ukraine well and is greatly respected in that Country even as his opponents attack him
Indeed they stabilised the economy after Truss 6 week debacle and Sunak / Hunt would not have produced an anti growth jobs destroying budget
You asked the question and I have provided a response which no doubt will not please but there we are
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
I think she's called it the wrong way for political reasons.
If we have evidence that the claim is true, then there may be a case to be made. But we're still waiting for some evidence from Bobby J.
Feel free to give my post a point-by-point fisking, supported by evidence, but you won't.
i've given you the response of the Minister of Justice. Despite her flaws, I am presuming she is more of an expert on the Criminal Justice system than you
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
I think she's called it the wrong way for political reasons.
If we have evidence that the claim is true, then there may be a case to be made. But we're still waiting for some evidence from Bobby J.
Are you denying that the need for a PSR is likely to reduce the length/possibility of a prison sentence? Because that seems its explicit purpose, so perhaps you could explain?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Rochdale Pioneers is pro Musk?
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.
I'm not pro Musk. I've been attacking him on YouTube for months. Much to the upset of the fanbois.
Most people? Its a car.
Boycott Tesla! If we aren't even prepared to do this we can just allow Europe to be destroyed by evil hostile oligarchs. Up to you.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his claim is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I documented yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a story around their hot buttons.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows he is being deliberately misleading.
They don't go to the same church as the people he is trying to lie to...
I think most of the people he is trying to talk to are unlikely to go to church anyway, except at the margins - perhaps some of the independent churches or those highly traditionalist ones with the likes of "Father" Calvin Robinson (he of the fascists salute) involved may.
He's making the same mistake they all make who are trying to bring Trumpvangelical or Integralist Roman Catholic stuff across the pond.
Very few here will fall for it, as Christendom no longer exists here unlike in the South of the USA, which reduces the trend to going to church for social or reputational reasons. These days most go because they mean it. (Getting into a faith school may be one exception in some places.)
Nor as a society are we generally unequal enough or rich enough to need a Prosperity Gospel to divert our consciences from cutting hugely significant chunks out of our Bibles (see Bishop Budde's comments and how Trump / Vance and their followers reacted). And that means anyone in churches gets input from elsewhere are well, and are generally quite committed to social action. Even traditionalist evangelicals and catholics are likely to align more with the Sermon on the Mount than they will with Christian Nativism.
He'd have had a chance in Victorian times, but we lost Christendom as an overarching framework roughly after the shock of WW1.
There are elements of the Right / Far Right using essentially "crusader" imagery (drawn partly from football supporters, partly from Tommy Robinson type sources), but they are not mainstream. As seen in the flags at Tommy Robinson's big day at Trafalgar Square last July (iirc).
There are more Christians in Nigeria, Brazil and the Philippines than the UK now. When rightwing nationalists talk of defending British Christians it is basically code for defending non Muslim whites of Christian heritage even if they watch the MoD replay or play golf rather than going to church on Sunday morning now
Stakes increasing a little in the Allison Pearson "door-stepped by police" case, and the legal action she says she is taking.
Essex Police "acted reasonably" during a hate crime investigation into a social media post by the Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, a report states.
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) looked into the force's actions after Pearson claimed she felt "bullied and threatened" when officers visited the columnist's Essex home in Essex on Remembrance Sunday in November 2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8y9j7j953o
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Rochdale Pioneers is pro Musk?
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.
I'm not pro Musk. I've been attacking him on YouTube for months. Much to the upset of the fanbois.
Most people? Its a car.
Much of Musk's wealth and power comes from his shareholding in Tesla. Anyone encouraging people to buy a Tesla is helping Musk, and therefore pro-Musk.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I just think @RochdalePioneers has this mindset ' it's all the Tories fault' and just cannot help himself
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
You're the one who misquoted Sky News, not me.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
What do you not understand that Labour were present in three meetings since the election and stayed silent and did not advise Mahmood
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Rochdale Pioneers is pro Musk?
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.
I'm not pro Musk. I've been attacking him on YouTube for months. Much to the upset of the fanbois.
Most people? Its a car.
I was joking at the absurd suggestion made by another poster..
@christopherhope NEW Are the wheels wobbling at Nigel Farage's Reform UK party? So far today ... - Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe has raised questions about Nigel Farage's leadership and whether he might be PM telling @toryboypierce : "We have to start developing policy which is going to change the way we govern. I’m not going to be by Nigel’s side at the next election unless we have a proper plan to change the way we govern from top to bottom." - Official Electoral Commissions figures show that the Tories raised £6 for every £1 raised by Reform Oct to Dec last year; - Deputy leader Richard Tice apparently forgets the surnames of two councillors who have defected to his party in Scotland.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
It was found to be complete shite, as one of the biggest causes of crime is that there's no negative consequences.
A large part of that is because we defunded the criminal justice system, such that trials end up happening five years after people are caught.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Liberal democracy is best of breed, no question. The tweak it needs (imo) to become the ultimate forever system is more focus on reducing inequality. Otherwise it becomes vulnerable to the stunted aspirations of too many people. People who are ripe for exploitation by charlatans, extremists and rich shadowy men.
Should rich ex-city accountants (and their overly generous pensions) be targets of this type of redistribution?
Oh yes. I'm not one of those "wealthy equals my position plus £1" types.
The North American tariff policy might make strategic sense if Trump's plan is to decouple from local trade partners in preparation for an invasion of Mexico.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
It was found to be complete shite, as one of the biggest causes of crime is that there's no negative consequences.
Hence the rise in incidents of shoplifting and the rise of anti social behaviour by young people in town centres.
If only there was some way Sen. Young could at the time have foreseen that reassurances he was receiving were worth diddly squat.
"Sen. Todd Young (Ind.), the lead Republican on the CHIPS and Science Act, said Trump’s demand to repeal the law caught him by surprise, especially after he sought assurances from Trump’s Cabinet nominees about keeping the law and its priorities in place.
“I have to admit I was surprised,” he said, adding that he received “reassurances” privately and publicly from Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Young said he sought those reassurances “in order to be supportive of certain nominees.”
If only there were a history of GOP senators receiving private assurances from controversial nominees, which subsequently turned out to be worth as much as a Trump IOU.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.
For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)
OGH * was nearly an oligarch? That's a turn up !
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
(Snip)
Ahem. As perhaps PB's most typical 'centrist dad', I've pointed out a fair few times over the years that Russia would be looking to fund anti-fracking and general environmental groups. The response to which was often: "But they're an oil and gas power! Why would they try to stop oil and gas extraction?"
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)
They'll be funding any kind of anti-British energy generation campaigning. Renewables, nuclear, EVs etc have the benefit, eventually, of being independent of OPEC, so they'll be the biggest concern to Russia.
Next, the first round of this year's Flyball competition! Including some of the fastest teams in the world, including the current world record holders. One of the competitors has just three legs...
First up, Crufts regulars Tails we Win, versus the Commandos.
First round, a fault from Tails, the Commandos from Stockton are one up.
Second round, Tails make it one:one
The decider....it's close...Commandos finish strongly and steal it with their final dog!
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
To do that he needs to come up with some evidence that his basic claim of sentencing reports causing anti-white man bias is true.
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
If any of that bollocks is true, and it isn't, why did Mahmood respond to Jenrick with this tweet, which clearly says he has a point
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Why? Because of the pointless political dick-measuring contest which is criminal justice.
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
It was found to be complete shite, as one of the biggest causes of crime is that there's no negative consequences.
A large part of that is because we defunded the criminal justice system, such that trials end up happening five years after people are caught.
For anyone liable for a relatively short sentence, the biggest injustice they are likely to face, irrespective of ethnicity, is the years in limbo awaiting trial.
Leon recently gave us his account of his year awaiting his day in court. How would he have felt had it been four years ?
The North American tariff policy might make strategic sense if Trump's plan is to decouple from local trade partners in preparation for an invasion of Mexico.
You're circling the rationalisation drain, william.
Next up, Crufts regulars and competition favourites Roadrunners from Belgium, on good form, versus Barking 4 Balls from Stoke
Road Runners take the first by a nose
And the second, a fault from Barking in red, the Roadrunners looking good for this year's competition - they go through - it'll be mussles and beer all round in Birmingham tonight!
On Trump's blocking of intelligence to Ukraine, does anyone have any idea how many of the commercial satellite image providers who could supply suitable targeting imagery are beyond the reach of the US Government?
It wouldn't surprise me if most of them were based in the USA.
Well I'm back from 9 holes (played poorly if you must know) and I can report that Donald Trump has totally lost the golf club demographic. Much gnashing of teeth down there. And it's not a lefty liberal space to put it mildly.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
The last real change of 'regime' we had was in 1997 and since then we've had broad continuity regardless of which party was in power.
No 2019 delivered Brexit, 2010 austerity
Austerity is just a propaganda term and Brexit failed to be used as a trigger for domestic reform.
Someone else's fault. Just can't get the quality of politicians these days that will follow the true path. You have my sympathies.
Stakes increasing a little in the Allison Pearson "door-stepped by police" case, and the legal action she says she is taking.
Essex Police "acted reasonably" during a hate crime investigation into a social media post by the Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, a report states.
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) looked into the force's actions after Pearson claimed she felt "bullied and threatened" when officers visited the columnist's Essex home in Essex on Remembrance Sunday in November 2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8y9j7j953o
On Trump's blocking of intelligence to Ukraine, does anyone have any idea how many of the commercial satellite image providers who could supply suitable targeting imagery are beyond the reach of the US Government?
It wouldn't surprise me if most of them were based in the USA.
There's been no mention of a ban on commercial sales of satellite imagery of Ukraine. So in theory the AFU can just buy what they need, or more likely the UK, France or whoever does that for them.
But such imagery isn't going to be as clear or up to date as the US military can provide. The US apparently could see basically in real time Russian bombers taking off, so Ukraine's missile defences could go on alert. Commercial providers can't match that.
The S&P 500, Nasdaq and Dow all finished yesterday up on the day before.
We are not even in correction territory yet.
Slump is excessive but the Dow and S&P have both gone through a sharpish downturn these last couple of weeks, albeit after a strong run over the last year.
Well I'm back from 9 holes (played poorly if you must know) and I can report that Donald Trump has totally lost the golf club demographic. Much gnashing of teeth down there. And it's not a lefty liberal space to put it mildly.
Losing the golf crowd could be an albatross on his back that will take a fair way to come back from unless he can quickly iron out some of the issues.
Well I'm back from 9 holes (played poorly if you must know) and I can report that Donald Trump has totally lost the golf club demographic. Much gnashing of teeth down there. And it's not a lefty liberal space to put it mildly.
Losing the golf crowd could be an albatross on his back that will take a fair way to come back from unless he can quickly iron out some of the issues.
Well I'm back from 9 holes (played poorly if you must know) and I can report that Donald Trump has totally lost the golf club demographic. Much gnashing of teeth down there. And it's not a lefty liberal space to put it mildly.
Losing the golf crowd could be an albatross on his back that will take a fair way to come back from unless he can quickly iron out some of the issues.
@christopherhope NEW Are the wheels wobbling at Nigel Farage's Reform UK party? So far today ... - Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe has raised questions about Nigel Farage's leadership and whether he might be PM telling @toryboypierce : "We have to start developing policy which is going to change the way we govern. I’m not going to be by Nigel’s side at the next election unless we have a proper plan to change the way we govern from top to bottom." - Official Electoral Commissions figures show that the Tories raised £6 for every £1 raised by Reform Oct to Dec last year; - Deputy leader Richard Tice apparently forgets the surnames of two councillors who have defected to his party in Scotland.
Well I'm back from 9 holes (played poorly if you must know) and I can report that Donald Trump has totally lost the golf club demographic. Much gnashing of teeth down there. And it's not a lefty liberal space to put it mildly.
Losing the golf crowd could be an albatross on his back that will take a fair way to come back from unless he can quickly iron out some of the issues.
Comments
As I said before he is simply wrong on this
Excluding white, straight, Christian male villains from a pre sentencing reporting was probably erroneous.
And yes, this will cost.
This is the problem with the categorising shite like "centrist dads". It just create a bogus group that is not really a firm grouping, but a nebulous cloud of people with vaguely similar views who may disagree vehemently on many things. But the labeling is handy for people who want something to criticise.
Nobody is disputing whether the review concluded in February 2024. Under the Tories.
The results of that review are being published now. Under Labour. There was an opportunity to persuade the review not to do this. Before it concluded. That didn't happen. They've published the results, both sides agree they are wrong. Both sides agree a law change is needed. Why?
Because here and no the minister has no legal power to do anything.
Jenrick says "the minister didn't object". To what? For what purpose? The time to act was until the end of February 2024.
Sadly the first dog, Bunty, is older than his handler and has chosen his own way around the course.
The next dog, Zoro, goes clear at 25 seconds - could be hard to beat?
Rogue, next, is eliminated, as is the fourth competitor Luna, too excited to concentrate on the course
Next, Zip the Shetland sheepdog…clear and goes into second place!
A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
There are some exceptions, and notably disabled people *can* be treated more favourably than non-disabled ones as a group, but that's the only category exception. Beyond that, and exceptions for legitimate / proportionate reasons, it applies equally to all groups within each identity category.
But Ollie the Spaniel goes clear into the lead on 26 seconds.
The next young handler with Bootsy goes wrong and is eliminated.
Next, Arrow, the spaniel, part of the GB agility team…into the lead with 25.4 seconds clear!
Final competitor Robin finishes clear but slow. Arrow wins!
He has produced no such evidence afaics, and has indulged in artfully edited rhetoric. And such current research as we have seems to refute his claim. His basic proposition that sentencing reports cause discrimination is, until then, a fairy story.
I say it's just a social media dog whistle, as I pointed out yesterday.
What I find interesting is that after the - until he proves otherwise - tall tale he told in Parliament, he then went on GB News (subsequently posted to FB and Twitter), and extended his claims from race and religion, to women and gender and disabled (neurodiverse). I'd say that's an attempt to wind up the GB News audience by crafting a different dog whistle around the hot buttons that make their knees jerk.
He went so far as to say that "anybody who is not a Christian" is favoured and that you are more likely to go to jail if you are a "straight white male". He's very confused about his categories.
It seems he hasn't copped that we have, for example, 100k Chinese Christians in this country (out of a Chinese community of 500k), and that most black people are in the 'Christian community' - as church members or by cultural background.
He's following and leveraging JD Vance's nativist, misogynist narrative to appeal to ... I'm not quite sure who. If he's against all those things, there's not a lot of society left that he can be for; certainly not enough for him to get a majority.
Leaving that aside, like JD Vance he is a trained legal professional, so he knows what the purpose of sentencing reports is, and he knows that he is being deliberately misleading.
Personally, I'd think that Kemi should remove the whip, but in the current state of the party that is unlikely.
"Sen. Todd Young (Ind.), the lead Republican on the CHIPS and Science Act, said Trump’s demand to repeal the law caught him by surprise, especially after he sought assurances from Trump’s Cabinet nominees about keeping the law and its priorities in place.
“I have to admit I was surprised,” he said, adding that he received “reassurances” privately and publicly from Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Young said he sought those reassurances “in order to be supportive of certain nominees.”
Next Hazard the collie…25 seconds and clear!
Now Twiglet the spaniel, 32 seconds and demolishes two of the fences for ten faults
Cassie the collie, fast and clear at 25.4 seconds, into second place
The last dog, Future the nine year old collie, five faults for going the wrong way, now another five, so Hazard wins the Intermediate category.
Next, the fences are raised to 60 cms for the large category dogs…
Indeed all parties make mistakes - what happened with the Lib Dems and tuition fees
He who is without sin first cast the stone
And now Mahmood accepts it is wrong
I expect you will next be blaming the ' tories' for anyone who owns a Tesla is pro Musk
Another collie, Ava, super keen and fast, 30.5 seconds, but a refusal for five faults.
Now Archie, collie, five faults at the Skoda fence, 32 seconds. So slow Teddy is still in the lead…
Scottish collie Fusion, very fast, 25.7 seconds.
Nikki, working collie sheepdog, fails at the weaves.
Finally, Stevie the cross breed, clear at 32 seconds.
Credit to the young kennel club for a great show.
Spent the morning away from here (hiss, boo) but 'attending' a fascinating Zoom presentation on "Growing Up Human: The Evolution of Childhood" by a Lecturer in Archeology at UCLAN organised by the Third Age Trust.
They do a fascinating series of lectures on all sorts of topics particularly those retired or almost retired.
I didn't know, for example, about the importance of teeth in the archeological examination in the examination of early human and pre-human remains.
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.
1) What these meetings were where they "stayed silent"
Reminder - they were not to set sentencing guidelines because that was done in a review ending in February 2024
2) What they were supposed to advise Mahmood to do.
Reminder - the SofS has No Legal Power to do anything
Most people? Its a car.
"The Sentencing Council is entirely independent.
Today's updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance.
As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.
There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch."
https://x.com/ShabanaMahmood/status/1897338599542006132
She clearly believes this IS two tier sentencing, and is objecting
Both parties have to out-tough the other, so we jack up conviction rates until the prisons are full. Meanwhile whole swathes of the community suffer crime epidemics despite the record numbers in the clink.
We're doing something very wrong. Whatever happened to tough on the causes of crime?
He's making the same mistake they all make who are trying to bring Trumpvangelical or Integralist Roman Catholic stuff across the pond.
Very few here will fall for it, as Christendom no longer exists here unlike in the South of the USA, which reduces the trend to going to church for social or reputational reasons. These days most go because they mean it. (Getting into a faith school may be one exception in some places.)
Nor as a society are we generally unequal enough or rich enough to need a Prosperity Gospel to divert our consciences from cutting hugely significant chunks out of our Bibles (see Bishop Budde's comments and how Trump / Vance and their followers reacted). And that means anyone in churches gets input from elsewhere are well, and are generally quite committed to social action. Even traditionalist evangelicals and catholics are likely to align more with the Sermon on the Mount than they will with Christian Nativism.
He'd have had a chance in Victorian times, but we lost Christendom as an overarching framework roughly after the shock of WW1.
There are elements of the Right / Far Right using essentially "crusader" imagery (drawn partly from football supporters, partly from Tommy Robinson type sources), but they are not mainstream. As seen in the flags at Tommy Robinson's big day at Trafalgar Square last July (iirc).
Mahmood agrees they are unaceptable and it will be her responsibility to address the issue
It also appears Jenrick is to challenge the decisions in court
As a matter of interest do you agree the decisions are wrong and need to be addressed?
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897644417051131942?t=91JO0FKMLXaDzpfhDTaAYQ&s=19
The UK's 'bridge between the US and EU' until 2029 will likely end up therefore being Sir Keir being forced to choose between the 2 to some degree and hoping he avoids most of the tariffs Trump likely imposes on EU imports next months and sucks up to Trump enough with the state visit etc to ensure he still allows Trident to work (though whether it is reliant on US controlled infrastructure or also independent like the French deterrent is debateable). If we offer its coverage to Canada, as well as Australia and NZ we would hope it is the latter
Nevertheless, if there's one thing the last four years have taught us, it's that a little bit of energy diversification is cheap insurance.
If we have evidence that the claim is true, then there may be a case to be made. But we're still waiting for some evidence from Bobby J.
Feel free to give my post a point-by-point fisking, supported by evidence, but you won't.
There is some chatter that these guidelines have been in place for quite a while, and all this latest update has done is codify them a little too explicitly, making the two tier nature far too blatant. Hence the stramash now
IF this is true, then it would explain - perhaps - some of the more outrageous sentences we have seen in recent years, With, say, child rapists (of the preferred religion or race) getting remarkably short jail terms
Also they dealt with covid better than the opposition wouod have as they wanted to keep us all in lockdown for much longer and certainly Johnson dealt with Ukraine well and is greatly respected in that Country even as his opponents attack him
Indeed they stabilised the economy after Truss 6 week debacle and Sunak / Hunt would not have produced an anti growth jobs destroying budget
You asked the question and I have provided a response which no doubt will not please but there we are
Essex Police "acted reasonably" during a hate crime investigation into a social media post by the Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, a report states.
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) looked into the force's actions after Pearson claimed she felt "bullied and threatened" when officers visited the columnist's Essex home in Essex on Remembrance Sunday in November 2024.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8y9j7j953o
What's the name of your channel again?
https://x.com/JoshEakle/status/1897638068401713235
single source at this point
The S&P 500, Nasdaq and Dow all finished yesterday up on the day before.
We are not even in correction territory yet.
·
7m
NEW
⚡️ US trade deficit surges 34% in January after 36% increase in imports
⚡️ Record increase in deficit in monthly dollar basis
⚡️ Record increase in imports in a month on dollar and percentage basis
Tariff #stockpiling & #gold effect. Medicines, phones, and computers too.
https://x.com/faisalislam/status/1897663443420774873
NEW Are the wheels wobbling at Nigel Farage's Reform UK party? So far today ...
- Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe has raised questions about Nigel Farage's leadership and whether he might be PM telling
@toryboypierce
: "We have to start developing policy which is going to change the way we govern. I’m not going to be by Nigel’s side at the next election unless we have a proper plan to change the way we govern from top to bottom."
- Official Electoral Commissions figures show that the Tories raised £6 for every £1 raised by Reform Oct to Dec last year;
- Deputy leader Richard Tice apparently forgets the surnames of two councillors who have defected to his party in Scotland.
Surely not.
How could he have possibly have suspected ?
Nothing goes up in a straight line or down in one.
First up, Crufts regulars Tails we Win, versus the Commandos.
First round, a fault from Tails, the Commandos from Stockton are one up.
Second round, Tails make it one:one
The decider....it's close...Commandos finish strongly and steal it with their final dog!
Leon recently gave us his account of his year awaiting his day in court. How would he have felt had it been four years ?
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
Businesses planning to pass through price increases and cut jobs on the back of the budget changes coming in the new tax year.
The so-called workers rights bill won’t help either.
https://x.com/julianhjessop/status/1897663585628664097?s=61
Road Runners take the first by a nose
And the second, a fault from Barking in red, the Roadrunners looking good for this year's competition - they go through - it'll be mussles and beer all round in Birmingham tonight!
It wouldn't surprise me if most of them were based in the USA.
Sadly the three-legged dog chalks a fault, with a false start, Focus takes the first.
The second, Focus lead throughout, they go through.
Kudos to the Bouncers for running their disabled dog, but it probably wasn't a winning strategy
The Senate confirmation hearing for FDA Commissioner nominee Marty Makary is scheduled to start at 10 am ET. ..
https://x.com/adamfeuerstein/status/1897659510509945004
But such imagery isn't going to be as clear or up to date as the US military can provide. The US apparently could see basically in real time Russian bombers taking off, so Ukraine's missile defences could go on alert. Commercial providers can't match that.
Crossbow killer watched Andrew Tate videos before attack
Kyle Clifford has been found guilty of rape, having already admitted murdering his ex-partner, her mother and her sister
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/06/crossbow-killer-watched-andrew-tate-videos-before-attack/
A fault from the reds, two dogs on course. Now a fault on blue, false start - both sides run an extra dog. The Chasers take the first.
The Magnets have to win the second to stay in it...a false start from the Chasers..now a fault on red
Extra dogs on both sides...it's one each!
So, the decider...the dogs are hyped up...great start from the Magnets...but the Chasers win through with their later dogs. Storm Chasers go through!