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
Fortunately I don't make a living from writing. Imagine being so fuckin' dreary and having to justify one's tiresome style to Michael Gove at every editorial meeting.
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.
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.
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
Fortunately I don't make a living from writing. Imagine being so fuckin' dreary and having to justify one's tiresome style to Michael Gove at every editorial meeting.
It was touching to see you try there, tho, with your careful dropping of the g from the end of fuckin' to sound a tiny bit more interesting and suave
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
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
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
Lawyers are almost by definition supporting of the establishment so when the establishment is liberal left wing (it has been for years and years) so are lawyers
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
Lawyers are almost by definition supporting of the establishment so when the establishment is liberal left wing (it has been for years and years) so are lawyers
Yes, indeed
We've been a culturally liberal left country (for good or bad) since at least the early 90s, possibly long before (Thatcher's revolution was economic not socio-cultural). That is many decades of cemented liberalism, now reflected in our legal system
It was good for a while, then it was mediocre, now it is corrosive, decadent and morally corrupt, and any truly reforming government needs to sweep it all away
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.
My own ignorant view from the outside is that it is a combination of poverty, lack of opportunity, gang culture and, probably most importantly, a racist police force. I freely admit these are just gut responses and may be wrong but they stem at least in part from my belief that the Met, as an example, is unfit for purpose and in spite of the efforts of senior officers, still contains too many members who equate black with criminal.
Yes they now get all of the downsides, with essentially none of the miniscule upsides, a bit more onshoring. Anyone who thinks acting like this is some sort of clever negotiating strategy is probably nearly as dumb as Donald.
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
Fortunately I don't make a living from writing. Imagine being so fuckin' dreary and having to justify one's tiresome style to Michael Gove at every editorial meeting.
It was touching to see you try there, tho, with your careful dropping of the g from the end of fuckin' to sound a tiny bit more interesting and suave
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
Fortunately I don't make a living from writing. Imagine being so fuckin' dreary and having to justify one's tiresome style to Michael Gove at every editorial meeting.
It was touching to see you try there, tho,
Isn't the correct spelling of "though", er "though"?
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
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.
Precisely so, and the principle could go wider than that still.
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.
I think both things are probably true.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
That says more about your friend circle than anything else.
I cannot imagine why a Labour voter like you has so many left friends.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
You've never met Paul Diamond?
(TBF he doesn't pass the gin-soaked popinjay criterion .)
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.
No, it's about being the headline story, all day and every day.
"Tory peer apologises for Holocaust memorial comment"
"Conservative peer Lord Hamilton has apologised after saying the Jewish community should "pay for their own" Holocaust memorial because they have "an awful lot of money".
"The former minister said his comments in a House of Lords debate on plans for a memorial near Parliament were "insensitive" but "not intended to be antisemitic"."
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.
And, of course, if you're explaining, you're losing.
This feeds into a pre-existing narrative that the "Establishment" are out to get white men and thus will just fuel more polarisation.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
That says more about your friend circle than anything else.
I cannot imagine why a Labour voter like you has so many left friends.
Whether you vote Labour or Tory doesn't have much bearing on whether you are on the left or the right on questions like this. The Tories implemented more than their fair share of left-wing legislation over the last 14 years.
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.
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*
Look at the stats from the E&W 2021 census on female participation in the workforce. In most segments of the population female participation lags male participation by 5-10%. Guess in which segment of the population it lags by about 30%.
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
Fortunately I don't make a living from writing. Imagine being so fuckin' dreary and having to justify one's tiresome style to Michael Gove at every editorial meeting.
It was touching to see you try there, tho, with your careful dropping of the g from the end of fuckin' to sound a tiny bit more interesting and suave
Unfortunately, the effect is still cringe
What, more than "gonna" and "white babies" and (oh god) "panties"?
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.
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*
Look at the stats from the E&W 2021 census on female participation in the workforce. In most segments of the population female participation lags male participation by 5-10%. Guess in which segment of the population it lags by about 30%.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
He's neither, but Lord Sumption is an independent thinker.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Currently reading the Secret Barrister's book which details the same issues but was written some time ago. Has the situation with PSR's deteriorated in recent years?
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.
I think both things are probably true.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
Depends where the bias is introduced. I think people are getting confused - this is trying to prevent discrimination once the individual is in front of a judge. It's not going to solve the deeper systemic issues which means more people from ethnic minorities end up in front of a judge in the first place.
Another option would be employing less racist judges. But that's difficult, given judges are 40/50 years in the making.
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?
I wonder if the polling would be different on "British Indian Ocean Territory" which would resolve the geographical question and also make the sovereignty issue abundantly clear.
My guess is that DKs would go down, and polling would split into two equal camps - because we are two countries.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
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
Fortunately I don't make a living from writing. Imagine being so fuckin' dreary and having to justify one's tiresome style to Michael Gove at every editorial meeting.
It was touching to see you try there, tho, with your careful dropping of the g from the end of fuckin' to sound a tiny bit more interesting and suave
Unfortunately, the effect is still cringe
What, more than "gonna" and "white babies" and (oh god) "panties"?
Leon spells "though" as "tho" to sound a tiny bit more interesting and suave
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
Short term protection is not to be sniffed at, depending upon the nature of the offence. If a domestic burglar is in prison for a year, that might be 100 families who don't have to go through the horror of being burgled.
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.
I think both things are probably true.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
Bill Morris did a report on sentencing some years ago. He found that black defendants were much less likely to plead guilty than white defendants. That resulted in stiffer sentences.
Looks like opinion on the Chagos Islands is pretty evenly split but most don't have a view either way
Very few people care much about the Chagos Islands. Most of those few are PB contributors.
PB contributors, due to education, income and experience- by and large - will tend to have a larger interest in legal, constitutional and broader geopolitical issues.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
We have a lower incarceration rate than European countries that are currently regarded as safer such as Poland, Czechia and Hungary. Maybe we need to build more prisons.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
I would say, you have to do something pretty bad, or be a recidivist , to get an immediate custodial sentence.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Currently reading the Secret Barrister's book which details the same issues but was written some time ago. Has the situation with PSR's deteriorated in recent years?
I am not an English lawyer so I can’t really say. Based on my experience there is pressure on the system everywhere so it would be surprising if there were not resource constraints on PSRs.
In Scotland there is a statutory presumption against imprisoning someone who has not been imprisoned before and a social work report is mandatory before that is done. But it is a different system.
Looks like opinion on the Chagos Islands is pretty evenly split but most don't have a view either way
Very few people care much about the Chagos Islands. Most of those few are PB contributors.
PB contributors, due to education, income and experience- by and large - will tend to have a larger interest in legal, constitutional and broader geopolitical issues.
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.
Zelensky's main rival in polls, Zaluzhnyi, is even more anti Putin than he is
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.
I think both things are probably true.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
Depends where the bias is introduced. I think people are getting confused - this is trying to prevent discrimination once the individual is in front of a judge. It's not going to solve the deeper systemic issues which means more people from ethnic minorities end up in front of a judge in the first place.
Another option would be employing less racist judges. But that's difficult, given judges are 40/50 years in the making.
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.
And, of course, if you're explaining, you're losing.
This feeds into a pre-existing narrative that the "Establishment" are out to get white men and thus will just fuel more polarisation.
That's a weak argument Casino. If the guidelines are solving a genuine problem, that's good. If they are counteracting one problem with another, that's bad. How they play politically should be secondary. If you put that first you're embracing post-truth politics, which ends up at a Trump-equivalent.
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Looks like opinion on the Chagos Islands is pretty evenly split but most don't have a view either way
Very few people care much about the Chagos Islands. Most of those few are PB contributors.
PB contributors, due to education, income and experience- by and large - will tend to have a larger interest in legal, constitutional and broader geopolitical issues.
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.
And, of course, if you're explaining, you're losing.
This feeds into a pre-existing narrative that the "Establishment" are out to get white men and thus will just fuel more polarisation.
That's a weak argument Casino. If the guidelines are solving a genuine problem, that's good. If they are counteracting one problem with another, that's bad. How they play politically should be secondary. If you put that first you're embracing post-truth politics, which ends up at a Trump-equivalent.
And of course that doesn't take into account wilful ignorance and deliberate amnesia on the Conservative side, i.e. that the sentencing guidelines were created under their own aegis. It's impossible to explain to an audience like that, for whom it is fatal to even listen.
To the horror show nightmare which I keep hoping we shall all wake up and find it was a dream, can I add this thought.
Let us suppose that shortly it is openly stated by all right thinking people and political leaders worldwide that in the USA as it now is - and it may get much worse - there has been what amounts to an elected fascist coup. All predictable so far, and quite possible.
Thinking of Canada and UK in particular (recall that USA has nuclear facilities in Suffolk, and Canada is joined at the hip) given the intertwining of relationships etc, is it possible that UK and/or Canada will either be forced or feel forced, when push comes to shove WTR choosing sides, to go with USA?
And if I were Starmer would this prospect keep me awake or is this (hopefully) impossible fantasy.
I went to a photographic exhibition in Nice today on the early months of the civil war in Ukraine in 2014. Some outstanding war photography.
I have to say the story of the war as it unfolded was more complex than I had understood it to be. This is not to excuse the Russian invasion eight years later but it's a shame that we have to understand it through the eyes of 'goodies and baddies' without reference to the complexities
'A prehistoric burial site in Dorset is now thought to be the earliest known large circular enclosure in Britain prompting researchers to question whether current dating of Stonehenge may need revising.
The Flagstones monument, near Dorchester in Dorset, has been re-dated to about 3200BC, approximately two centuries earlier than previously thought, following analysis by the University of Exeter and Historic England.'
Wonder what Thomas Hardy would have made of this turning up in his garden.
(And the actual paper is open access, so far as I can tell.)
Looks like opinion on the Chagos Islands is pretty evenly split but most don't have a view either way
Very few people care much about the Chagos Islands. Most of those few are PB contributors.
PB contributors, due to education, income and experience- by and large - will tend to have a larger interest in legal, constitutional and broader geopolitical issues.
And railways.
And (useful at present) military stuff. Also boxsets.
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
We add to the US capability quite substantially in these things. Together we've been smarter than the Russians - separated then we become just on a level field - however then the Russians have two approaches to worry about.
I think it is better for us and the US that we operate independently anyway. And clearly far better for us that we do so now.
To the horror show nightmare which I keep hoping we shall all wake up and find it was a dream, can I add this thought.
Let us suppose that shortly it is openly stated by all right thinking people and political leaders worldwide that in the USA as it now is - and it may get much worse - there has been what amounts to an elected fascist coup. All predictable so far, and quite possible.
Thinking of Canada and UK in particular (recall that USA has nuclear facilities in Suffolk, and Canada is joined at the hip) given the intertwining of relationships etc, is it possible that UK and/or Canada will either be forced or feel forced, when push comes to shove WTR choosing sides, to go with USA?
And if I were Starmer would this prospect keep me awake or is this (hopefully) impossible fantasy.
If he did, only the Lib Dems and Nationalists would oppose it. I can't see Badenoch or Farage siding with Europe.
I went to a photographic exhibition in Nice today on the early months of the civil war in Ukraine in 2014. Some outstanding war photography.
I have to say the story of the war as it unfolded was more complex than I had understood it to be. This is not to excuse the Russian invasion eight years later but it's a shame that we have to understand it through the eyes of 'goodies and baddies' without reference to the complexities
There was no civil war. Right from 2014 the conflict was being directed from Moscow with Russian troops and equipment. Where do you get this garbage from?
Hegseth and Healey meeting in Washington. Healey looked very nervous. I was wondering why, surely Hegseth isn’t that scary? Then I saw Peter Mandelson sitting next to him, chaperoning every carefully measured sentence.
Looks like opinion on the Chagos Islands is pretty evenly split but most don't have a view either way
Very few people care much about the Chagos Islands. Most of those few are PB contributors.
PB contributors, due to education, income and experience- by and large - will tend to have a larger interest in legal, constitutional and broader geopolitical issues.
Why on earth should the man in the street have any views on the Chagos Islands. Isn't it a classic example of the sort of thing we elect politicians and have Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office to be expert about because it isn't possible for us to be.
On issues as obscure as this, even if we think they are all venal and useless, we still don't think for a moment we can substitute their expertise by ours.
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Let’s hope the move toward four eyes doesn’t prove to be shortsighted.
Looks like opinion on the Chagos Islands is pretty evenly split but most don't have a view either way
Very few people care much about the Chagos Islands. Most of those few are PB contributors.
PB contributors, due to education, income and experience- by and large - will tend to have a larger interest in legal, constitutional and broader geopolitical issues.
And railways.
And cricket, of course.
Should go without saying of course. But the young tardy PBer can catch up over time on that.
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Won’t that provoke Trump ? . I’d be happy if we did pull out and told the US where to go but just can’t see the UK doing this given their current juggling act .
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.
Which is why the correct response is not to engage.
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Won’t that provoke Trump ? . I’d be happy if we did pull out and told the US where to go but just can’t see the UK doing this given their current juggling act .
The other option is to pretend to remain in 5 Eyes and provide the US with totally duff information...
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Won’t that provoke Trump ? . I’d be happy if we did pull out and told the US where to go but just can’t see the UK doing this given their current juggling act .
I don’t think we have a choice. We cannot trust that intelligence is not being fed to the Kremlin.
It’s a crowded field of best of breeds for the Terrier group - who will the judge shortlist?
And the short list is the bedlington (from Sweden, with soppy ears), border terrier, wire haired terrier, the popular Jack Russell, Kerry blue, dandie dinmont terrier, Skye terrier, and Welsh terrier.
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Won’t that provoke Trump ? . I’d be happy if we did pull out and told the US where to go but just can’t see the UK doing this given their current juggling act .
I don’t think we have a choice. We cannot trust that intelligence is not being fed to the Kremlin.
I agree but would the UK really effectively say to the US we don’t trust you .
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.
I think both things are probably true.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
Depends where the bias is introduced. I think people are getting confused - this is trying to prevent discrimination once the individual is in front of a judge. It's not going to solve the deeper systemic issues which means more people from ethnic minorities end up in front of a judge in the first place.
Another option would be employing less racist judges. But that's difficult, given judges are 40/50 years in the making.
If they ar ebreaking the law who cares what colour or religion they are , thay are arseholes and deserve what they get. No excuse to say I just committed a crime because I was poor , black , muslim , etc. They are criminals , get them flogged or locked up. For shoplifters they should bring back stocks and make supermarkets donate all their rotten fruit and veg to throw at the miscreants. No excuses for criminals.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
And the Terrier winner is the Jack Russell, from Italy, a very popular choice! The runner up is the Kerry Blue. Third place to the Welsh terrier, fourth to the Border.
I went to a photographic exhibition in Nice today on the early months of the civil war in Ukraine in 2014. Some outstanding war photography.
I have to say the story of the war as it unfolded was more complex than I had understood it to be. This is not to excuse the Russian invasion eight years later but it's a shame that we have to understand it through the eyes of 'goodies and baddies' without reference to the complexities
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
I would say, you have to do something pretty bad, or be a recidivist , to get an immediate custodial sentence.
In my present case I had a witness who got 12 months for selling knock off handbags contrary to the Trades Description Act. She had previous convictions but had never been to prison before.
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.
I think both things are probably true.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
Depends where the bias is introduced. I think people are getting confused - this is trying to prevent discrimination once the individual is in front of a judge. It's not going to solve the deeper systemic issues which means more people from ethnic minorities end up in front of a judge in the first place.
Another option would be employing less racist judges. But that's difficult, given judges are 40/50 years in the making.
Who says ethnic minorities are more likely to end up in front of a judge in the first place? Many ethnic groups are under represented in criminal convictions based on their share of the population.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The idea that a spell in jail turns one away from a life of crime is rather quaint, pagan2.
I went to a photographic exhibition in Nice today on the early months of the civil war in Ukraine in 2014. Some outstanding war photography.
I have to say the story of the war as it unfolded was more complex than I had understood it to be. This is not to excuse the Russian invasion eight years later but it's a shame that we have to understand it through the eyes of 'goodies and baddies' without reference to the complexities
There was no civil war. Right from 2014 the conflict was being directed from Moscow with Russian troops and equipment. Where do you get this garbage from?
Votes and referendums in the Donbas......and photographs of huge pro Russian rallies. I'm making no point other than there is a back story of which i was unaware because I was not following the story too closely. I got the information from a photographic exhibition today which did nothing but take the exhibition goers through the work. It certainly wasn't making any political points apart from the brutality of war
Kind of as predicted by some of us I see NBC are reporting that UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are discussing ending the Five Eyes relationship with the USA and scaling back on what intelligence they share with them.
Won’t that provoke Trump ? . I’d be happy if we did pull out and told the US where to go but just can’t see the UK doing this given their current juggling act .
The other option is to pretend to remain in 5 Eyes and provide the US with totally duff information...
We could pull a Wagatha Christie move, feed them some nonsense and see if the Russians respond, then reveal it on Instagram.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The idea that a spell in jail turns one away from a life of crime is rather quaint, pagan2.
The reason I am asking if those jailed for lower level crimes are almost guaranteed to be habitual criminals before their first jail term so I am not surprised that recidivism is high
I am just wondering if they got prison for the first offence would that make a difference to recidivism stats...I don't know the answer I am just pointing out that the recidivism stats are skewed because prison is only applied to habitual offenders for low level crimes
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.
Which is why the correct response is not to engage.
The tariffs changes may show that there is a divide in the inner reaches of the administration over economic stuff. The saner wing have probably managed to talk him off the ledge by showing charts of stock market.
Someone will be sacked or resign shortly no doubt.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The idea that a spell in jail turns one away from a life of crime is rather quaint, pagan2.
The reason I am asking if those jailed for lower level crimes are almost guaranteed to be habitual criminals before their first jail term so I am not surprised that recidivism is high
I am just wondering if they got prison for the first offence would that make a difference to recidivism stats...I don't know the answer I am just pointing out that the recidivism stats are skewed because prison is only applied to habitual offenders for low level crimes
I do understand your question, and apologies for a flippant answer. Others will be far better placed on here to give you a proper response.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The underlying premise is that a period in prison is casually linked to future offending. The little evidence available, such as recidivism rates on custodial and non custodial sentences, suggests the reverse.
Richard Tice launching the Reform Party's Scotland campaign by standing next to an enormous plastic whippy choc-ice in a Glasgow East End chippy chanting "Drill, Scotland, drill" is surreal even by that party's norms. Bunuel has nothing on these guys.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The idea that a spell in jail turns one away from a life of crime is rather quaint, pagan2.
The reason I am asking if those jailed for lower level crimes are almost guaranteed to be habitual criminals before their first jail term so I am not surprised that recidivism is high
I am just wondering if they got prison for the first offence would that make a difference to recidivism stats...I don't know the answer I am just pointing out that the recidivism stats are skewed because prison is only applied to habitual offenders for low level crimes
Mostly those caught for crime will have conducted other crimes previously. The police are quite poor.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The underlying premise is that a period in prison is casually linked to future offending. The little evidence available, such as recidivism rates on custodial and non custodial sentences, suggests the reverse.
Has there been a study done where the first offence leads to a prison term? vs the we will put you in jail only if you are in front of the bench enough times?
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.
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.
Which is why the correct response is not to engage.
The tariffs changes may show that there is a divide in the inner reaches of the administration over economic stuff. The saner wing have probably managed to talk him off the ledge by showing charts of stock market.
Someone will be sacked or resign shortly no doubt.
Or, if he's learning from Putin, fall out of a high window...
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
I would say, you have to do something pretty bad, or be a recidivist , to get an immediate custodial sentence.
In my present case I had a witness who got 12 months for selling knock off handbags contrary to the Trades Description Act. She had previous convictions but had never been to prison before.
I mean, WTF? To protect the profits of Gucci?
As a generality I would agree but not always.
Unfortunately daylight robbery isn't a custodial crime.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The underlying premise is that a period in prison is casually linked to future offending. The little evidence available, such as recidivism rates on custodial and non custodial sentences, suggests the reverse.
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
I would say, you have to do something pretty bad, or be a recidivist , to get an immediate custodial sentence.
In my present case I had a witness who got 12 months for selling knock off handbags contrary to the Trades Description Act. She had previous convictions but had never been to prison before.
I mean, WTF? To protect the profits of Gucci?
As a generality I would agree but not always.
Pardon me; are you saying a witness was jailed? Didn't she get her own trial as Defendant?
In fact, I cannot remember the last time I met an actual right wing lawyer. As in: a full-on Brexity Tory gin-swilling hang-em-high justice of the peace
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
There are a whole host of reasons why the poor black man ends up in prison and the rich white women doesn’t.
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
Disproportionate to what? Society or criminals?
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
And yet it is the criminal justice system that locks them up, losing any employment they have, often losing their housing, losing connections with family and children. In short, making them far more likely to offend again in the future.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
A question if I may, these days the first crime rarely ends up custodial, nor often the 5th or 10th. It often seems that you need to be in court for the twentieth plus time unless its a very serious crime.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
The idea that a spell in jail turns one away from a life of crime is rather quaint, pagan2.
The reason I am asking if those jailed for lower level crimes are almost guaranteed to be habitual criminals before their first jail term so I am not surprised that recidivism is high
I am just wondering if they got prison for the first offence would that make a difference to recidivism stats...I don't know the answer I am just pointing out that the recidivism stats are skewed because prison is only applied to habitual offenders for low level crimes
There are a few to whom prison is their only secure space. When they are released they may be homeless, with no family or other support, and no money, nor legal way of obtaining any. In prison, they have a guaranteed bed and food. Committing another crime is the only way to return “home”.
Richard Tice launching the Reform Party's Scotland campaign by standing next to an enormous plastic whippy choc-ice in a Glasgow East End chippy chanting "Drill, Scotland, drill" is surreal even by that party's norms. Bunuel has nothing on these guys.
I went to a photographic exhibition in Nice today on the early months of the civil war in Ukraine in 2014. Some outstanding war photography.
I have to say the story of the war as it unfolded was more complex than I had understood it to be. This is not to excuse the Russian invasion eight years later but it's a shame that we have to understand it through the eyes of 'goodies and baddies' without reference to the complexities
There was no civil war. Right from 2014 the conflict was being directed from Moscow with Russian troops and equipment. Where do you get this garbage from?
Ukrainians?
When I was in Ukraine I heard several admit that the beginnings of it all were quite murky, with double dealing on both sides, and interference from different outside actors, much of it malign
They were, however, all adamant that Putin's invasion of 2022 was barbaric evil and wrong, and were determined to defend their country (and their friends were dying, doing it) - but they were surprisingly nuanced on the origins of it all
Comments
When I checked it was green. Now red !
Open 5785.87
High 5812.08
Low 5721.59
Currently 5738.61
Taken from my iPhone stocks app.
Unfortunately, the effect is still cringe
https://x.com/thesun/status/1897407763564638608?s=61
I wonder if they even exist any more
On the other hand, I have met many many many left wing lawyers and judges, some very left, nearly always Remainery
We've been a culturally liberal left country (for good or bad) since at least the early 90s, possibly long before (Thatcher's revolution was economic not socio-cultural). That is many decades of cemented liberalism, now reflected in our legal system
It was good for a while, then it was mediocre, now it is corrosive, decadent and morally corrupt, and any truly reforming government needs to sweep it all away
https://x.com/alifarhat79/status/1897675003220365795?s=61
Poor people are much more likely to go to prison, whatever their colour. Their propensity to steal, for example, is driven by their situation and lack of options.
They are less likely to be in employment so less able to pay compensation.
They are more likely to live in criminal environs making recidivism more likely.
They are less likely to have a secure address or a stable family relationship.
They are likely to be less well represented.
They are more likely to have a problematic relationship with drugs and alcohol, not least because their life is shit.
I could go on but if the courts are going to find ways of not sending a disproportionate number of poor black men to prison they need to think outside the box a bit more and a pre-sentencing report can help with that.
These guidelines are based on real evidence and real experiences of those at the sharp end. Having given it some thought I back them and regret that Labour ran away because they thought it looked “woke”.
And a bleeding heart liberal I ain’t.
The stats about ethnic minorities being more likely to go to prison reveal systemic racism somewhere in the system, but without revealing where.
The sentencing guidelines counteract that by introducing bias at a specific point in the system, but probably not at the right point.
If this is the best answer to the systemic racism, fine, but I suspect there is a better answer by addressing disparities elsewhere in the system.
I cannot imagine why a Labour voter like you has so many left friends.
(TBF he doesn't pass the gin-soaked popinjay criterion
"Conservative peer Lord Hamilton has apologised after saying the Jewish community should "pay for their own" Holocaust memorial because they have "an awful lot of money".
"The former minister said his comments in a House of Lords debate on plans for a memorial near Parliament were "insensitive" but "not intended to be antisemitic"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39vd7gj94jo
This feeds into a pre-existing narrative that the "Establishment" are out to get white men and thus will just fuel more polarisation.
In most segments of the population female participation lags male participation by 5-10%.
Guess in which segment of the population it lags by about 30%.
Nothing you say is untrue, but the judge shouldn't be unringing the root causes bell, should he, no matter how sympathetic he is? Root causes are the job of parts of society other than the justice system.
Another option would be employing less racist judges. But that's difficult, given judges are 40/50 years in the making.
My guess is that DKs would go down, and polling would split into two equal camps - because we are two countries.
Lord Howard famously said “prison works” but for the vast majority of offenders ( very serious offenders are a different category) it doesn’t. It disrupts and increases the risk of recidivism but any protection for society is short term. We lock up a higher percentage of our population than almost any European country. There is no evidence at all that makes us safer or prevents future victims of crime. We need to find better solutions.
In Scotland there is a statutory presumption against imprisoning someone who has not been imprisoned before and a social work report is mandatory before that is done. But it is a different system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_presidential_election
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq9n48el43o
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/64/5/1189/7612940
If the guidelines are solving a genuine problem, that's good. If they are counteracting one problem with another, that's bad.
How they play politically should be secondary. If you put that first you're embracing post-truth politics, which ends up at a Trump-equivalent.
Let us suppose that shortly it is openly stated by all right thinking people and political leaders worldwide that in the USA as it now is - and it may get much worse - there has been what amounts to an elected fascist coup. All predictable so far, and quite possible.
Thinking of Canada and UK in particular (recall that USA has nuclear facilities in Suffolk, and Canada is joined at the hip) given the intertwining of relationships etc, is it possible that UK and/or Canada will either be forced or feel forced, when push comes to shove WTR choosing sides, to go with USA?
And if I were Starmer would this prospect keep me awake or is this (hopefully) impossible fantasy.
I have to say the story of the war as it unfolded was more complex than I had understood it to be. This is not to excuse the Russian invasion eight years later but it's a shame that we have to understand it through the eyes of 'goodies and baddies' without reference to the complexities
'A prehistoric burial site in Dorset is now thought to be the earliest known large circular enclosure in Britain prompting researchers to question whether current dating of Stonehenge may need revising.
The Flagstones monument, near Dorchester in Dorset, has been re-dated to about 3200BC, approximately two centuries earlier than previously thought, following analysis by the University of Exeter and Historic England.'
Wonder what Thomas Hardy would have made of this turning up in his garden.
(And the actual paper is open access, so far as I can tell.)
I think it is better for us and the US that we operate independently anyway. And clearly far better for us that we do so now.
On issues as obscure as this, even if we think they are all venal and useless, we still don't think for a moment we can substitute their expertise by ours.
And the short list is the bedlington (from Sweden, with soppy ears), border terrier, wire haired terrier, the popular Jack Russell, Kerry blue, dandie dinmont terrier, Skye terrier, and Welsh terrier.
They are criminals , get them flogged or locked up. For shoplifters they should bring back stocks and make supermarkets donate all their rotten fruit and veg to throw at the miscreants.
No excuses for criminals.
So the question is by the twentieth offence a life of crime is already embedded in the psyche.....would prison work better if the first offence got a jail sentence and turn more away from a life of crime.
I don't know the answer but feel its a fair question to ask
I mean, WTF? To protect the profits of Gucci?
As a generality I would agree but not always.
Been offline most of the day.
Anyone want to give a brief summary of how the current day in the Trump madhouse has gone?
I am just wondering if they got prison for the first offence would that make a difference to recidivism stats...I don't know the answer I am just pointing out that the recidivism stats are skewed because prison is only applied to habitual offenders for low level crimes
https://x.com/breaking911/status/1897627813965967662
Someone will be sacked or resign shortly no doubt.
When I was in Ukraine I heard several admit that the beginnings of it all were quite murky, with double dealing on both sides, and interference from different outside actors, much of it malign
They were, however, all adamant that Putin's invasion of 2022 was barbaric evil and wrong, and were determined to defend their country (and their friends were dying, doing it) - but they were surprisingly nuanced on the origins of it all