Geography today – politicalbetting.com

System · March 6

Geography today – politicalbetting.com

This polling from Ipsos is fascinating, I find it interesting that support/opposition for the Chagos deal remains largely unmoved when the public are told the specifics of the deal.

Read the full story here

Foxy · March 6

First, like Mauritius.

Nigelb · March 6

Second, like Ascension.

ManOfGwent · March 6

It remains a strategically and politically stupid thing to do.

Strategically we are giving up the certainty that sovereignty brings with a flimsy treaty.

Politically, there is no upside and the downside is the cost being used by the opposition.

williamglenn · March 6

Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/06/reform-mp-says-nigel-farage-must-change-messianic-leadership-style

One of Nigel Farage’s most prominent MPs has questioned his “messianic” leadership and called for his leader to delegate more and make a “proper plan”.

Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, who was touted as a replacement leader by Elon Musk earlier this year, also said he did not know whether Farage would be a good prime minister.

Asked by the Daily Mail about Farage’s leadership and potential to enter No 10, Lowe said: “It’s too early to know whether Nigel will deliver the goods. He can only deliver if he surrounds himself with the right people.

“Nigel is a fiercely independent individual and is extremely good at what we have done so far. He has got messianic qualities. Will those messianic qualities distill into sage leadership? I don’t know.”

Lowe also suggested he could leave the Reform party if it does not change before the next election by structuring itself with less dependence on Farage.

“We have to change from being a protest party led by the Messiah into being a properly structured party with a frontbench, which we don’t have. We have to start behaving as if we are leading and not merely protesting."

Nigelb · March 6

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

Never heard of him.

What films is he in ?

tlg86 · March 6

I think Keiran is wrong about a big chunk of the 33% are guessing. Going by the wrong answers, I reckon maybe 5pp of the 33% are simply guessing.

tlg86 · March 6

Nigelb said:
Second, like Ascension.

They're the Azores!

williamglenn · March 6

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

Never heard of him.

What films is he in ?

I think he was in St Elmo's Fire and About Last Night.

DavidL · March 6

I know where they are now. Not so sure I could have told you 6 months ago without the Mauritius clue.

MaxPB · March 6

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.

Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.

TheScreamingEagles · March 6

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

Never heard of him.

What films is he in ?

The near extinction of Southampton FC is his biggest film.

Nigelb · March 6

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

Never heard of him.

What films is he in ?
The near extinction of Southampton FC is his biggest film.

Oh, so william means the 68 yr old MP ?

Eabhal · March 6

A useful reminder that PB != the public.

I suspect the numbers would be quite different if you mentioned the threat to the MPA, with Brits being a bunch of woke environmentalists.

MattW · March 6

FPT:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...

I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

Nigelb · March 6

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:
Second, like Ascension.
They're the Azores!

I'm still operating with one eye.

Taz · March 6

Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61

TheScreamingEagles · March 6

Taz said:
Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61

Elon Musk proving himself to be a massive bellend and enemy of Ukraine.

***SHOCKED***

Luckyguy1983 · March 6

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.

I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.

williamglenn · March 6

https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1897686380744147302

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!

WhisperingOracle · March 6

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1897686380744147302

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!

A lot of leaders seem to be learning the ego-stroking approach.

Leon · March 6

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.

Indeed. It is utterly pathetic

scampi25 · March 6

Ot. I think the EU and others response since Saturday's summit is extremely impressive. Trump's hostility to all things Ukraine is deeply depressing. Difficult times ahead in the UK as the spending cuts will dismay many for whom Foreign affairs mean nothing . I have no clue how this ends but not the greatest time to be alive for anyone under 60.

PJH · March 6

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

Never heard of him.

What films is he in ?
The near extinction of Southampton FC is his biggest film.
Oh, so william means the 68 yr old MP ?

That's the problem they have - at the next election Lowe will be over 70, Farage, Tice and Anderson all over 60 and the only MP they have young enough to succeed for any length of time is a no-mark paper candidate who accidentally won.

Admittedly I don't follow them much but I don't see anyone being pushed into prominence from outside parliament ready for a by-election or the next GE. So my guess is that if there is a change of leadership beyond a stop-gap then it is as likely to be a current Conservative MP as anyone else. Though I think Anderson would fancy his chances, and he probably chimes best with Reform's support, if not its financial backers.

JosiasJessop · March 6

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.

That is a classic out-of-context quote snip.

GeorgeMikes · March 6

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

Entertaining that one of the sentencing council is called Jo King.

The fair approach to avoiding impact on children is to target the main caregiver, not to target mothers/all women.

The fair approach to avoiding other inequalities is to target the drivers of those inequalities, i.e. poverty, mental health etc rather than ethnic status.

Richard_Tyndall · March 6

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

You need to separate the bandwagon jumping of the odious Jenrick from the debate on whether the policy itself is right or wrong.

In my eyes it is wrong to enact a policy which means ultimately that one group of people are more or less likely to go jail based on their ethnicity.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.

MaxPB · March 6

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:
Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61
Elon Musk proving himself to be a massive bellend and enemy of Ukraine.

***SHOCKED***

But he's also completely wrong, unless of course the US helps Russia stuff the ballot boxes in Ukraine to oust Zelenskyy, which I guess isn't beyond the realms of possibility now, in fact it's verging on probable.

Theuniondivvie · March 6

I expect the attention of the public is entirely occupied with the advent of AI, the tyranny of Woke and 2 Tier Keir.

JosiasJessop · March 6

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

You need to separate the bandwagon jumping of the odious Jenrick from the debate on whether the policy itself is right or wrong.

In my eyes it is wrong to enact a policy which means ultimately that one group of people are more or less likely to go jail based on their ethnicity.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.

That's a very fair comment IMO. So what are the reasons why more ethnic minorities end up in jail? Getting to the bottom of that is the first step to see whether this 'warping' policy is good or bad.

Andy_JS · March 6

It's excellent to see that Shabana Mahmood is taking this issue so seriously. She clearly recognises how important it is to have impartial justice. I hope she takes over as next Labour leader based on this.

Sean_F · March 6

ManOfGwent said:
It remains a strategically and politically stupid thing to do.

Strategically we are giving up the certainty that sovereignty brings with a flimsy treaty.

Politically, there is no upside and the downside is the cost being used by the opposition.

And, doing it to please two countries, the USA and India, that do not like us anyway.

And, it does concern me that one day, the UN will rule that the Falklands belongs to Argentina, or Gibraltar to Spain, and that a most unwelcome precedent will have been set.

kle4 · March 6

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/06/reform-mp-says-nigel-farage-must-change-messianic-leadership-style

One of Nigel Farage’s most prominent MPs has questioned his “messianic” leadership and called for his leader to delegate more and make a “proper plan”.

Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, who was touted as a replacement leader by Elon Musk earlier this year, also said he did not know whether Farage would be a good prime minister.

Asked by the Daily Mail about Farage’s leadership and potential to enter No 10, Lowe said: “It’s too early to know whether Nigel will deliver the goods. He can only deliver if he surrounds himself with the right people.

“Nigel is a fiercely independent individual and is extremely good at what we have done so far. He has got messianic qualities. Will those messianic qualities distill into sage leadership? I don’t know.”

Lowe also suggested he could leave the Reform party if it does not change before the next election by structuring itself with less dependence on Farage.

“We have to change from being a protest party led by the Messiah into being a properly structured party with a frontbench, which we don’t have. We have to start behaving as if we are leading and not merely protesting."

I think it was inevitable there would be some internal handbags at some point, given past history with Faragite parties. Interesting that this has come so soon, whilst Reform are still riding a bit of a wave.

Luckyguy1983 · March 6

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.
That is a classic out-of-context quote snip.

I make it completely clear that I am addressing a part of David L's post, and his full post is still in the nested quote. So I don't think it is.

david_herdson · March 6

Taz said:
Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61

Musk is hardly in a position to talk about people wielding vast power without being duly appointed to a properly-established office.

MattW · March 6

GeorgeMikes said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

Entertaining that one of the sentencing council is called Jo King.

The fair approach to avoiding impact on children is to target the main caregiver, not to target mothers/all women.

The fair approach to avoiding other inequalities is to target the drivers of those inequalities, i.e. poverty, mental health etc rather than ethnic status.

(Caregiver status is also in the list.)

After 2 years including a full consultation these are the conclusions which have been reached.

Jenrick has stated that he is taking them to Court (Judicial Review?) as a challenge - fair enough.

He is also the Shadow Justice Secretary, so if he thinks it is important he can organise an Opposition Day debate, in addition to stirring on social media.

Let's see what he does, and what happens.

kle4 · March 6

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1897686380744147302

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!
A lot of leaders seem to be learning the ego-stroking approach.

I think his aggression this time around took people by surprise, as it was already known from last time he likes people to lay flattery on thickly. I don't think he cares whether it is sincere, indeed if it isn't he may like it more, as it is a signal of his power.

Sean_F · March 6

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

You need to separate the bandwagon jumping of the odious Jenrick from the debate on whether the policy itself is right or wrong.

In my eyes it is wrong to enact a policy which means ultimately that one group of people are more or less likely to go jail based on their ethnicity.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.

And also to note that “ethnic minorities” are not a monolith. Some groups have rates of incarceration that are below that of the white population, some above.

JosiasJessop · March 6

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:
Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61
Elon Musk proving himself to be a massive bellend and enemy of Ukraine.

***SHOCKED***
But he's also completely wrong, unless of course the US helps Russia stuff the ballot boxes in Ukraine to oust Zelenskyy, which I guess isn't beyond the realms of possibility now, in fact it's verging on probable.

Why should another state force an election on a different sovereign state, out of a wartime victor scenario?

Musk has been very pi**ed off with Starmer, and encouraged the petition calling for another UK election. If Trump said he was going to enact tough sanctions against the UK unless we held elections to get rid of Starmer, would you approve?

Zelenskyy is the elected president of Ukraine, and Ukrainian law says there should be no elections during war - for obvious reasons.

Roger · March 6

Even by the standards of PB on a light news day in mid August anyone showing a glimmer of interest in the Chagos Islands is seriously anally retentive and needs help urgently......

Mexicanpete · March 6

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

Two posts up on this mini thread Leon misrepresents Centrist Dads. Centrist Dads identified a not insurmountable problem with leaving WASP crims off the sentence report list. What we objected to was Jenrick (and yourself) pitching it in two tier ethnicity based justice terms. All the law experts I have listened to on the radio have suggested Jenrick has deliberately misled his audience for ethnically charged political points scoring purposes. That is the issue Centrist Dads have.

Clearly there is a problem, but not in the terms identified by those who like to stir the ethnicity pot. And has been mentioned on here several times, Jenrick's chums were running the show this time last year when the report was being compiled.

JosiasJessop · March 6

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.
That is a classic out-of-context quote snip.
I make it completely clear that I am addressing a part of David L's post, and his full post is still in the nested quote. So I don't think it is.

It is out of context. DavidL made a thoughtful, balanced comment, looking at both sides. You snipped one side and called out the other side.

kle4 · March 6

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.

I think that is well put - you can have a genuine issue but come up with solutions which either do not solve it, or even aggravate it.

A less serious example could be something like concerns around representation in films etc, with a 'solution' of insisting upon things like only gay actors for gay roles, or matching actor ethnicity to character. That's just plain stupid in terms of restricting actors, whose job is to pretend, even if the intent is noble.

kinabalu · March 6

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.

So shocked you didn't read his caveating next sentence, it seems.

MattW · March 6

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1897686380744147302

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!
A lot of leaders seem to be learning the ego-stroking approach.

Trump's reverse ferret is very complete. The USMCA covers "virtually 100%" of trade between Canada - USA - Mexico.

What is now tariffed could perhaps be written on a golf scorecard. I don't have a list, though !

The one to watch imo is Canada's demand that he stop playing "beautiful tariffs hokey-cokey" every 30 days, and whether that changes.

kle4 · March 6

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:
Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61
Elon Musk proving himself to be a massive bellend and enemy of Ukraine.

***SHOCKED***

It's not as though Zelensky has always had universal popularity or does not get criticised, it makes the Trump-Vance-Musk attacks even more unhinged than they already are. It couldn't be more obviously about controlling the country more, it's a f*cking disgrace that 50% of the USA laps it up.

maxh · March 6

For those with time to read a fairly dense paper: How to defend democracy https://cascadeinstitute.org/technical-paper/defending-canadas-democracy/

It's written in the Canadian context but, aside from a few specific references eg to the Pledge for Canada, it's equally applicable to UK.

On one level, you could argue it states the bleeding obvious, but I think the recognition that different interventions to protect democracy will address different systemic risks, but that we need to cover all (or at least most) bases to have a positive systemic effect, is valuable.

MattW · March 6

MattW said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1897686380744147302

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!
A lot of leaders seem to be learning the ego-stroking approach.
Trump's reverse ferret is very complete. The USMCA covers "virtually 100%" of trade between Canada - USA - Mexico.

What is now tariffed could perhaps be written on a golf scorecard. I don't have a list, though !

The one to watch imo is Canada's demand that he stop playing "beautiful tariffs hokey-cokey" every 30 days, and whether that changes.

PS In the post-election context it is also relevant that we are moving towards a greater emphasis on rehabilitation alongside the traditional punishment obsession, since it is also about the future welfare of society.

What does Timpson think (if he is still in the building !) ?

david_herdson · March 6

Andy_JS said:
It's excellent to see that Shabana Mahmood is taking this issue so seriously. She clearly recognises how important it is to have impartial justice. I hope she takes over as next Labour leader based on this.

It's a bit early for that and a single data point doesn't necessarily make for a stellar future career. Still, her stock will rightly have risen with many this week.

Scott_xP · March 6

Nobody has ever seen anybody lose like Trusk...

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

NEWS: Big preliminary injunction from Judge John McConnell in the multistate lawsuit against the OMB grants/loans freeze.

"The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government."

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3ljpunva7xs2i

Luckyguy1983 · March 6

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

You need to separate the bandwagon jumping of the odious Jenrick from the debate on whether the policy itself is right or wrong.

In my eyes it is wrong to enact a policy which means ultimately that one group of people are more or less likely to go jail based on their ethnicity.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.

It is not 'badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities are ending up in gaol'. On the contrary, we know from specific scandals like the thing that mustn't be named, and the violence surrounding the Notting Hill Carnival, that often ethnic minority communities are policed lightly for the sake of community cohesion.

Regarding trials themselves, unless you, David L, Matt W or any other promotors of this idea that members of ethnic minority communities are receiving harsher sentences because judges are acting on racial or religious prejudice can provide some back up for this, I will continue to believe that the whole idea is twaddle. Judges may have been golf club racists at one time, but the opposite is now the case I would say. I find it extremely unlikely that hardships in the sentencees lives are not already given very significant weight in sentencing.

kinabalu · March 6

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:
Andrew Neil not mincing his words on the US administration

https://x.com/afneil/status/1897683496753066033?s=61
Elon Musk proving himself to be a massive bellend and enemy of Ukraine.

***SHOCKED***
It's not as though Zelensky has always had universal popularity or does not get criticised, it makes the Trump-Vance-Musk attacks even more unhinged than they already are. It couldn't be more obviously about controlling the country more, it's a f*cking disgrace that 50% of the USA laps it up.

Such a sick bunch they are. Constantly trolling and mocking and badmouthing people yet when anybody gives the teeniest bit back they go bananas.

Taz · March 6

Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html

MattW · March 6

MattW said:

MattW said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1897686380744147302

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. This Agreement is until April 2nd. I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!
A lot of leaders seem to be learning the ego-stroking approach.
Trump's reverse ferret is very complete. The USMCA covers "virtually 100%" of trade between Canada - USA - Mexico.

What is now tariffed could perhaps be written on a golf scorecard. I don't have a list, though !

The one to watch imo is Canada's demand that he stop playing "beautiful tariffs hokey-cokey" every 30 days, and whether that changes.
PS In the post-election context it is also relevant that we are moving towards a greater emphasis on rehabilitation alongside the traditional punishment obsession, since it is also about the future welfare of society.

What does Timpson think (if he is still in the building !) ?

Sorry - that PS should have been on the other thread.

Cookie · March 6

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html

Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.

RobD · March 6

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.

There are many former religious practices that have been outlawed. Not sure why the same can’t happen again.

Mexicanpete · March 6

Mexicanpete said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

Two posts up on this mini thread Leon misrepresents Centrist Dads. Centrist Dads identified a not insurmountable problem with leaving WASP crims off the sentence report list. What we objected to was Jenrick (and yourself*) pitching it in two tier ethnicity based justice terms. All the law experts I have listened to on the radio have suggested Jenrick has deliberately misled his audience for ethnically charged political points scoring purposes. That is the issue Centrist Dads have.

Clearly there is a problem, but not in the terms identified by those who like to stir the ethnicity pot. And has been mentioned on here several times, Jenrick's chums were running the show this time last year when the report was being compiled.

* Apologies to MattW. "you" in this instance referred to Leon who's post I was addressing via yours.

MoonRabbit · March 6

On topic, I’m still very much against UK signing this Chagos deal, I’m out of step with public opinion.

So many on PB still take the Conservative and Reform party line, surrendering Chagos just because UN told us too, and it wasn’t even binding, weakens current security of the base considering Mauritius friendly with the Chinese - AND why paying £18B in reparations too for WTF in return? Just to make lefty lawyers rich” makes PB way out of sync with public opinion on Chagos deal too.

TSE is right. All very unexpected and odd.

Before I started looking into it, I would have answered against the deal if polled, believing I knew enough about it to think it bad for national security, bizarre we are unnecessarily pay so much good money for no good reason. Now I understand Chagos Deal inside out, my answer would still be strongly opposed, but for very different reasoning. My own preferred outcome is identical to the view Lord Dannatt expressed: just gift ownership to the US and India and walk away, never to get involved again. That preference is of course absolutely impossible, due to our current and ongoing ties to US on defence and intelligence, particularly that the money we get from US for “hosting” the US base is mate rates discount on buying nuclear weaponry from them.

Its not UN resolutions UK surrendered to, it’s UN system gamed by Mauritius sponsors like India, helps tar UK as the bad seed, shredding our soft power throughout the region, its this damage to UK interest and business that applied the pressure. At same time US became happy to placate India with the lease idea - the lease money not just for Chagos base but environmental sanctuary around it that keeps snoopers at distance, is something moneybags US clearly happy to pay for what Trump called 140 years. Also having us dependent on buying nuclear weaponry from them is added bonus for US. Both Chagos deals - 1960s and this new one - tie UK with US on defence procurement, intelligence and working together - and that in a nutshell is why UK don’t have any choice but to sign up.

The Conservatives have been in government, they definitely know the truth behind all this without needing any “briefing”. Are the Conservatives overcooking their opposition to Chagos deal? Is Conservative opposition to Chagos deal actually getting them votes and credibility, or losing it for them?

carnforth · March 6

RobD said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
There are many former religious practices that have been outlawed. Not sure why the same can’t happen again.

Dare you to have a bash at banning infant circumcision. You'd need a century of campaigning.

Taz · March 6

Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

kle4 · March 6

RobD said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
There are many former religious practices that have been outlawed. Not sure why the same can’t happen again.

I'm not even saying halal would need to be simply outlawed, but I absolutely agree with the point that if appropriate it would be reasonable to do it.

Leon · March 6

Theuniondivvie said:
I expect the attention of the public is entirely occupied with the advent of AI, the tyranny of Woke and 2 Tier Keir.

No, surely it is the necessity of Scottish independence and the iniquity of "colonial rule" from London?

another_richard · March 6

Update from the stupid party:

Amid the Trump administration’s full throated attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, Black lawmakers in California introduced a package of reparations bills to start the new legislative session.

Black legislators say these attacks on racial equity make it even more imperative to implement reparations in California, the first state in the US to undertake such a process, which has become a blueprint for other state-level reparations programs.

“With the constant attacks on civil rights and the rolling back of decades of progress, it is essential that we continue the fight for justice,” said the state senator Akilah Weber Pierson, chair of the congressional Black caucus.

The bills, which are based on recommendations from the California reparations taskforce’s landmark 2023 report, include measures that could give priority in public university admission for descendants of enslaved people, update the public elementary and high-school curriculum to include the “impacts of segregation, slavery, and systemic discrimination”, and require government agencies to conduct racial equity analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/california-reparations-trump-dei

Will they ever realise how electorally damaging this is ?

Gallowgate · March 6

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

Are these people just using the threat of tariffs as a form of insider trading to manipulate the markets? None of it makes sense.

another_richard · March 6

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

Tariffs - on, off, on, off, on, off

Goodwill - off, off, off, off, off, off

Bad will - ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON

Frank_Booth · March 6

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/06/reform-mp-says-nigel-farage-must-change-messianic-leadership-style

One of Nigel Farage’s most prominent MPs has questioned his “messianic” leadership and called for his leader to delegate more and make a “proper plan”.

Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, who was touted as a replacement leader by Elon Musk earlier this year, also said he did not know whether Farage would be a good prime minister.

Asked by the Daily Mail about Farage’s leadership and potential to enter No 10, Lowe said: “It’s too early to know whether Nigel will deliver the goods. He can only deliver if he surrounds himself with the right people.

“Nigel is a fiercely independent individual and is extremely good at what we have done so far. He has got messianic qualities. Will those messianic qualities distill into sage leadership? I don’t know.”

Lowe also suggested he could leave the Reform party if it does not change before the next election by structuring itself with less dependence on Farage.

“We have to change from being a protest party led by the Messiah into being a properly structured party with a frontbench, which we don’t have. We have to start behaving as if we are leading and not merely protesting."

Trouble is he seems to be favoured by Musk. That could be the kiss of death.

Leon · March 6

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html

I for one prefer to focus on the many many good things that Muslim immigration has brought to Britain

*stares vaguely out of the window for seventeen hours, frowning slightly*

Richard_Tyndall · March 6

carnforth said:

RobD said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
There are many former religious practices that have been outlawed. Not sure why the same can’t happen again.
Dare you to have a bash at banning infant circumcision. You'd need a century of campaigning.

How many people would have any skin in the game?

I'll get my coat.

Mexicanpete · March 6

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

You need to separate the bandwagon jumping of the odious Jenrick from the debate on whether the policy itself is right or wrong.

In my eyes it is wrong to enact a policy which means ultimately that one group of people are more or less likely to go jail based on their ethnicity.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.

I see the omission of straight, white, heterosexual convicts as highly problematic. I can see why the issue was addressed, although I would agree a wrong has been righted using another wrong.

Jenrick who has been doing well this week (certainly for his own greasy pole prospects) took the Steve Winwood option (When you see a Chance you Take it). Like a lot of things Jenrick does, he grabs the headline before HIS narrative unravels, by which time he is home and hosed. Leon picked up Jenrick's ball and ran with it. They also both utilised a faulty omission as an opportunity to bang a racist conspiracy drum. I suspect the omission was more cock up than conspiracy.

MattW · March 6

A new SCOTUS ruling today against the US Govt, that it was not OK to have cut off funding to USAID contracts in mid-contract for services already provided at almost zero notice, and that suspended payments must be made. Notable for the US Govt being forced to follow the law.

It's as involved as ever, but in this case it is roughly Liberal Three vs MAGA Three, with the Chief Justice Roberts being attached to the Court's legal authority, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett taking relatively liberal positions, who make up the majority.

"Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors"
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/05/nx-s1-5309498/scotus-usaid-news

Leon · March 6

Mexicanpete said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

Two posts up on this mini thread Leon misrepresents Centrist Dads. Centrist Dads identified a not insurmountable problem with leaving WASP crims off the sentence report list. What we objected to was Jenrick (and yourself) pitching it in two tier ethnicity based justice terms. All the law experts I have listened to on the radio have suggested Jenrick has deliberately misled his audience for ethnically charged political points scoring purposes. That is the issue Centrist Dads have.

Clearly there is a problem, but not in the terms identified by those who like to stir the ethnicity pot. And has been mentioned on here several times, Jenrick's chums were running the show this time last year when the report was being compiled.

Your writing is so dreary and appalling I gave up halfway through sentence two, on the basis of style alone

Mexicanpete · March 6

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

4D chess?

williamglenn · March 6

Gavin Newsom is making moves to ingratiate himself with the MAGA movement.

https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1897652497285533839

Dopermean · March 6

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.

By which you mean you're troubled by slaughter methods that don't include stunning?
So you're including kosher slaughter methods as well? https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

Roger · March 6

Great news for WHITE South Africans. They alone are exempt from all immigration controls.

Apartheid is alive and well in Trump's America. Phew!

MarqueeMark · March 6

Frank_Booth said:

williamglenn said:
Potentially big developments in the Reform camp with rising star Rupert Lowe being openly critical of Farage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/06/reform-mp-says-nigel-farage-must-change-messianic-leadership-style

One of Nigel Farage’s most prominent MPs has questioned his “messianic” leadership and called for his leader to delegate more and make a “proper plan”.

Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, who was touted as a replacement leader by Elon Musk earlier this year, also said he did not know whether Farage would be a good prime minister.

Asked by the Daily Mail about Farage’s leadership and potential to enter No 10, Lowe said: “It’s too early to know whether Nigel will deliver the goods. He can only deliver if he surrounds himself with the right people.

“Nigel is a fiercely independent individual and is extremely good at what we have done so far. He has got messianic qualities. Will those messianic qualities distill into sage leadership? I don’t know.”

Lowe also suggested he could leave the Reform party if it does not change before the next election by structuring itself with less dependence on Farage.

“We have to change from being a protest party led by the Messiah into being a properly structured party with a frontbench, which we don’t have. We have to start behaving as if we are leading and not merely protesting."
Trouble is he seems to be favoured by Musk. That could be the kiss of death.

Especially as to move to the UK population they need to advance, he's going to need to be visibly more pro-Ukrainian - which will trigger Musk.

Reform is in a spot of bother.

MarqueeMark · March 6

Mexicanpete said:

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.
4D chess?

Not even tic-tac-toe...

another_richard · March 6

I see the Texan black democrats have their own gerontocracy.

Including Al Green, 77, thrown out of Trump's speech, Sylvester Turner, just died in office at 71, who replaced Sheila Lee, who died in office last year at 74.

Cookie · March 6

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
By which you mean you're troubled by slaughter methods that don't include stunning?
So you're including kosher slaughter methods as well? https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

Well yes.

FF43 · March 6

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.

Because the actual, here and now, two-tier sentencing is that ethnic minorities are more likely to go to prison for the same offence compared with white people and no-one shouting loudly about the sentencing guidelines in fact cares about the real injustice that is happening, regardless of whether the sentencing reports are appropriate or Indeed help to resolve that injustice.

Scott_xP · March 6

MattW said:
A new SCOTUS ruling today against the US Govt, that it was not OK to have cut off funding to USAID contracts in mid-contract for services already provided at almost zero notice, and that suspended payments must be made. Notable for the US Govt being forced to follow the law.

Read the dissent. The judge argues that contracts previously signed are not law. This is the same guy that refused Biden's student loan amnesty cos they were previously signed contracts...

WhisperingOracle · March 6

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

4d chess must now be overused nonsense cliche of the 21st century.

Foss · March 6

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
By which you mean you're troubled by slaughter methods that don't include stunning?
So you're including kosher slaughter methods as well? https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

Why not?

I believe 'Red Tractor' badged meat requires stun as part of the qualification process.

Scott_xP · March 6

WhisperingOracle said:

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.
4d chess must now be overused nonsense cliche of the 21st century.

He's not playing chess. He's not playing chequers. He's eating the pieces off the board

Taz · March 6

Gallowgate said:

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.
Are these people just using the threat of tariffs as a form of insider trading to manipulate the markets? None of it makes sense.

Well the theory is they are not bothered about the stock markets at the moment more the 10 year as a lot,of US debt is maturing this year and they want to roll it over at as low a rate as possible.

Some financial commentators think this makes sense, others dismiss it.

I said before some people will make about of money from the volatility.

As for you Q I just don’t know but I wouldn’t put it past them although the new treasures Secretary, Steve Bessent, is a former CIO at Soros Capital Managment so should know his way around the markets.

Scott_xP · March 6

@marisakabas.bsky.social‬

SCOOP: FEMA's top lawyer was forced out yesterday after less than a week on the job—and sources tell me it was because of his unwillingness to write a memo providing legal cover for the agency's impoundment of $80 million from NYC migrant shelters.

https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3ljpxzvilv22j

Leon · March 6

Cookie said:

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
By which you mean you're troubled by slaughter methods that don't include stunning?
So you're including kosher slaughter methods as well? https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter
Well yes.

Yes, I'd ban kosher as well. Sorry guys, but there it is

Ditto circumcision, unless medically required

Scott_xP · March 6

Matt on two-tier justice

https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1897705980097372648

JosiasJessop · March 6

Intuitive Machine's Nova-C lunar landing atempt does not sound as though it has gone nominally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wyg4gHj_g4

Luckyguy1983 · March 6

...

FF43 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

bondegezou said:
From Guardian reporting:

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.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.

The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.

What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
So the poor black man continues to be sentenced to jail while the rich white woman gets a community based disposal?

That's not right either and it is to the credit of the sentencing council that they are trying to do something about it.
Then fix that with judicial reform and much tighter sentencing guidelines. Don't bake actual discrimination into the justice system to fix some perceived bias.
I am quite shocked by David L's comments on this, and I don't shock easily.

I mean this is a jaw-dropper:

I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime.

Oh, 'a bit twitchy' about undermining the whole concept of justice before the law are you ducks? I do hope your twitches pass soon - you certainly seem to be over the worst of them.
Because the actual, here and now, two-tier sentencing is that ethnic minorities are more likely to go to prison for the same offence compared with white people and no-one shouting loudly about the sentencing guidelines in fact cares about the real injustice that is happening, regardless of whether the guidelines are appropriate or Indeed help to resolve that injustice.

Can you provide any evidence/examples of prison sentences being meted out that are disproportionately long where the circumstances are directly equivalent in terms of severity of offence, aggravating factors, previous convictions etc.?

Or are you just noting that BME convicts tend to get higher sentences and working backwards?

Taz · March 6

Richard_Tyndall said:

carnforth said:

RobD said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
There are many former religious practices that have been outlawed. Not sure why the same can’t happen again.
Dare you to have a bash at banning infant circumcision. You'd need a century of campaigning.
How many people would have any skin in the game?

I'll get my coat.

I once had a job as a circumcisors assistant. The guy that held the scissors and mopped the circumcisors brow, basic stuff really.

I did it before I went into engineering. Interesting job. Basic pay was poor but he gave me half the tips.

Cookie · March 6

Gallowgate said:

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.
Are these people just using the threat of tariffs as a form of insider trading to manipulate the markets? None of it makes sense.

Trump's MO is to make an astonishingly audacious opening gambit in order to make his adversary grateful for any subsequent veer towards reasonableness.

carnforth · March 6

Scott_xP said:
Matt on two-tier justice

https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1897705980097372648

Is there a criminal justice exemption from equality law? Is it possible these guidelines are actually illegal?

Sunil_Prasannan · March 6

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.
4D chess?
Not even tic-tac-toe...

"How about a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War?"

Sunil_Prasannan · March 6

Leon said:

Cookie said:

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

Taz said:
Food Standards Authority failed to act (what a shock !!) against non stun halal slaughterhouse where animals were subjected to cruelty and abuse before being despatched.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/slaughterhouse-abattoir-sheep-meat-halal-warwickshire-b2705241.html
Mm. I've mentioned this before, but I'm greatly troubled by the creeping normalisation of halal.
By which you mean you're troubled by slaughter methods that don't include stunning?
So you're including kosher slaughter methods as well? https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter
Well yes.
Yes, I'd ban kosher as well. Sorry guys, but there it is

Ditto circumcision, unless medically required

"It is God's will we are born uncut"?

Taz · March 6

For any of my fellow Dr Who fans out there, I got the season 7 limited edition Blu ray today.

It is a work of pure beauty and the episodes are gloriously,presented.

I remember the old camera copies of Silurians and the black and white Ambassadors of death that were going round in the late eighties. Barely watchable. Never expected them to be this good.

WhisperingOracle · March 6

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

All these developments are making me fascinated to see what a chaperoned and suck-up meeting between Zekensky and Trump, with Macron and Starmer standing behind, might achieve.

MattW · March 6

Scott_xP said:

MattW said:
A new SCOTUS ruling today against the US Govt, that it was not OK to have cut off funding to USAID contracts in mid-contract for services already provided at almost zero notice, and that suspended payments must be made. Notable for the US Govt being forced to follow the law.
Read the dissent. The judge argues that contracts previously signed are not law. This is the same guy that refused Biden's student loan amnesty cos they were previously signed contracts...

There's also that the funds not paid for services already rendered were funds mandated by Congress as holders of the "power of the purse", so legally over reach by the Executive.

Leon · March 6

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Mahmood is asking for the sentencing guidelines to be reviewed or she will legislate

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1897662622905868339?t=ZD_knZtGqqW1WsnhBi5dvw&s=19
And yet @MattW and The Centrist Dads have been tellling us: nothing to see here, move along

Now she is threatening to scrap the Sentencing Quango outright? Good. She should

When we finally get an alt-right government it needs to sweep away the entire Blob, very much including biassed boondoggles like this
PB to the left of Labour on the issue of crime & punishment & Trump to the right of Putin on refugees from the conflict...
I don't think it's about left or right here, as indicated by the semi-independence of the Sentencing Council (members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor aiui). It's about consistency despite the politics.

Sentencing guidelines are a way to facilitate a standard and common process, and sentencing reports exist to bring relevant circumstances forward to be considered by the Judge so that equal treatment can prevail.

Examples are whether others will be impacted by a sentence, for example women are usually those who care for children and it is not just to impact the education of a 6 year old, for example, more than necessary because of a crime committed by a parent.

It's about whether there is evidence to support this particular change to policy or not. At present I have not seen evidence to question the change, despite the shouting.

It went out to public consultation under the last Government, for part of which Jenrick was a Government Minister, and for the other part of which he was a back bencher. He had ample opportunity to comment, yet has not demonstrated that did not do so as and is shit-stirring now.

"Ban the Blob" demagoguery is the kind of kneejerk thinking that led Mr Chump to sack people responsible for looking after the USA's nuclear weapons.

Good, thoughtful Government is important, especially where distance from day to day politics is required.

You need to separate the bandwagon jumping of the odious Jenrick from the debate on whether the policy itself is right or wrong.

In my eyes it is wrong to enact a policy which means ultimately that one group of people are more or less likely to go jail based on their ethnicity.

I realise that currently the system is badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities end up in jail but in that case we need to deal with the reasons why that is the case, not introduce another warping policy that bases its outcomes on ethnicity.
It is not 'badly arranged so that more ethnic minorities are ending up in gaol'. On the contrary, we know from specific scandals like the thing that mustn't be named, and the violence surrounding the Notting Hill Carnival, that often ethnic minority communities are policed lightly for the sake of community cohesion.

Regarding trials themselves, unless you, David L, Matt W or any other promotors of this idea that members of ethnic minority communities are receiving harsher sentences because judges are acting on racial or religious prejudice can provide some back up for this, I will continue to believe that the whole idea is twaddle. Judges may have been golf club racists at one time, but the opposite is now the case I would say. I find it extremely unlikely that hardships in the sentencees lives are not already given very significant weight in sentencing.

Yes, the idea that a British judge is some harrumphing pink faced Tory gammon leaning close to the nearest stenographer and saying "who are these Beatles fellows" was out of date 30 years ago, and is now so insanely inaccurate it is risible

They will be centre left Remainery liberals, from Oxbridge or Redbricks, very often public school, based in southeast England and often London; some of them will be extremely liberal-left, and evermore will be women, BAME, etc

It is good that the judiciary is diverse, but these days it is probably - if anything - slanted to the left, not the right

Sunil_Prasannan · March 6

another_richard said:

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.
Tariffs - on, off, on, off, on, off

Goodwill - off, off, off, off, off, off

Bad will - ON, ON, ON, ON, ON, ON

"You are being disrespectful!"

Pulpstar · March 6

Taz said:
Trump now,postpones tariffs on Mexico for a month, Canada expects the same.

What a shitshow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

Suffice to say the US markets are now green.

You sure s&p did wb according to err Google ?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Geography today – politicalbetting.com

Comments