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...
If my perception of the Security Services is anywhere near right we could do that without really trying.
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.
Similarly with Russia, who demand preconditions before negotiation, bank them if granted, and then demand a new set of preconditions.
Trump is thick enough not to have worked this out. And pathetic enough to fold when, someone with sufficient autonomy tells him to fuck off with his opening gambit.
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.
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 read that as Brunel!
Me too!
And me
It must be the Scottish context, plus the reference to drilling and engineering: some weird mental glitch that infers "Brunel"
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”.
Yes and its a well known phenomenon but not what I am getting at. My point is we only now jail people who are already habitual criminals and then point at the recidivism rate to say prison doesn't work....I am wondering if we gave a prison term when they first offend would produce the same recidivism rate.
Anecdotal I know but I grew up in the time of the short sharp shock of borstal and knew people who got sent there and about 2 out of 3 came out vowing never going back there and turned their life round....small sample I know was about 8 people. Six of them are now good members of the community only 2 kept to a more non legal lifestyle
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?
No, she had a previous conviction which had to be disclosed to the defence in the current trial. It caught my eye only because it was frankly weird (imv).
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.
An example of money talking. Colour is only a factor in sentencing because black people tend to be poorer, on average. In Scotland, at least, brown people tend to be more prosperous, and less likely to be convicted of crime. I appreciate this may not be the case down south.
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?
No, she had a previous conviction which had to be disclosed to the defence in the current trial. It caught my eye only because it was frankly weird (imv).
My claim to fame....I got arrested and charged but CPS dropped it as being far too silly
Wtf was that. I don't think I've seen that level of cringe in a long time.
We have to remember that a large part of the reason Trump is president is that the Democrats tried ridiculously hard to make themselves unelectable. They don't seem to have learned their lesson. I don't fancy the chances of fighter #5.
I was going through some files and found this representation of the old Navy Fleet Air Defense mission Victor Lima using the method known as "Chain Saw". This was still in practice when I first started in the fleet in 1993 but it quickly faded.
But this was the primary fleet defense tactic for the Soviets during the 80s. The boat had two Tomcat squadrons of 14 jets each, so they could put some serious A/A ordnance at the pointy end of the chain saw. Any Soviet attempt to take out the carrier would need a LOT of Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks.
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
I mean it’s not that murky. One day some soldiers who were not Ukrainian appeared within Ukraine’s borders, and took the land.
Yes some locals felt a bit Russian, and back then some Ukrainians wanted to be close to Russia. But still, some soldiers who were not Ukrainian crossed the border, and that’s that.
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”.
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.
Yes, but all of the above is related to 'poor' and none to 'black'. Addressing this by race is solving the wrong problem.
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”.
Particularly prevalent at Christmas time.
Does it affect your presentation of cases, or the sheriff’s decisions, in any way?
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.
Would you like to be the Sheriff and test out your ideas?
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
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.
Yes, but all of the above is related to 'poor' and none to 'black'. Addressing this by race is solving the wrong problem.
That was pretty well the point I was making earlier. You could address this shit without engaging in reverse shit. And it would be considerably less unpopular.
Remember when I posted yesterday the Anglosphere nations' population (%-age) who are English-speaking "at home" (or "main" language)? I feel I must apologise to @Gardenwalker, @stodge and other PBers with knowledge of New Zealand - I looked up the wrong table in the 2023 Census data! :grimace"
Instead of a 95% figure (which is the "can speak" data, basically), the figure I should have quoted for NZ is 76%. So here is the table with revised stats!
English as "main" or "home" language:
NZ 95% (2023) UK 91% (2021) Ireland 83% (2022) USA 78% (2020) NZ 76% (2023) Aus 72% (2021) Can 68% (2021)
rising star: Singapore 48% (2020), was 32% (2010).
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
Wtf was that. I don't think I've seen that level of cringe in a long time.
We have to remember that a large part of the reason Trump is president is that the Democrats tried ridiculously hard to make themselves unelectable. They don't seem to have learned their lesson. I don't fancy the chances of fighter #5.
I’ve gotten a different take.
During the US campaign, Robert (I think) linked to a Nate Silver article that started with a photo of a row of billboards along the freeway, billboards for competing lawyers - picture better call Saul billboards - the lawyers presenting themselves as fighters, who know the court room ring craft, and how to come away with the win - the point being, the whole of the Trump campaign was based on this, and little else.
Call me. I’m your fighter. We’ll win together. I’ll deliver for you.
And with US voters it works.
The cheesy, manga tinged (though not as naff as Netflix One Piece) video you linked to, is just a riff on the same electoral tactic. Perhaps too easily laughed at and dismissed (unlike Netflix One Piece).
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
Remember when I posted yesterday the Anglosphere nations' population (%-age) who are English-speaking "at home" (or "main" language)? I feel I must apologise to @Gardenwalker, @stodge and other PBers with knowledge of New Zealand - I looked up the wrong table in the 2023 Census data! :grimace"
Instead of a 95% figure (which is the "can speak" data, basically), the figure I should have quoted for NZ is 76%. So here is the table with revised stats!
English as "main" or "home" language:
NZ 95% (2023) UK 91% (2021) Ireland 83% (2022) USA 78% (2020) NZ 76% (2023) Aus 72% (2021) Can 68% (2021)
rising star: Singapore 48% (2020), was 32% (2010).
Telegraph: Volodymyr Zelensky has backed plans for a partial truce to test whether Vladimir Putin is prepared to end his war on Ukraine.
Senior Ukrainian and US officials will discuss the air, sea and critical infrastructure, as well as a large-scale prisoner exchange between Kyiv and Moscow, at a meeting in Saudi Arabia next week. The framework for the truce was first proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.
“We all need to feel that the Russians are not deceiving us,” the Ukrainian president wrote online after meeting with EU leaders in Brussels today.
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
If Starmer is seen to appease Trump, he will be in difficulty with his own supporters.
At the moment I think most people understand the tightrope he’s walking but any hint of Starmer allying more with Trump will see him in trouble . If Starmer is forced to choose between Europe , Zelenskyy and the US and chooses the latter then I’d support his removal as Labour leader and PM .
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
If Starmer is seen to appease Trump, he will be in difficulty with his own supporters.
At the moment I think most people understand the tightrope he’s walking but any hint of Starmer allying more with Trump will see him in trouble . If Starmer is forced to choose between Europe , Zelenskyy and the US and chooses the latter then I’d support his removal as Labour leader and PM .
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
And in the Hound group, the judge’s shortlist is the whippet from Italy, the pharaoh hound from Oslo, the Irish wolf hound, the elk hound, greyhound, petit Bassett, borzoi, standard long dachshund, and afghan hound.
And the winner is Muccia the Italian whippet, with the Afghan in second, third place to the wolf hound and fourth the pharaoh.
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
If Starmer is seen to appease Trump, he will be in difficulty with his own supporters.
At the moment I think most people understand the tightrope he’s walking but any hint of Starmer allying more with Trump will see him in trouble . If Starmer is forced to choose between Europe , Zelenskyy and the US and chooses the latter then I’d support his removal as Labour leader and PM .
100%.
I think it’s pretty clear Trump would like the EU to fracture and also for the UK to pull towards the US. This way after we’ve burned our bridges with the EU he can demand anything . Starmer has had a dodgy start as PM but he has on Ukraine come across as genuinely wanting the best for the country and a proper peace deal not a sell out.
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
If Starmer is seen to appease Trump, he will be in difficulty with his own supporters.
At the moment I think most people understand the tightrope he’s walking but any hint of Starmer allying more with Trump will see him in trouble . If Starmer is forced to choose between Europe , Zelenskyy and the US and chooses the latter then I’d support his removal as Labour leader and PM .
100%.
I think it’s pretty clear Trump would like the EU to fracture and also for the UK to pull towards the US. This way after we’ve burned our bridges with the EU he can demand anything . Starmer has had a dodgy start as PM but he has on Ukraine come across as genuinely wanting the best for the country and a proper peace deal not a sell out.
Yes, it’s pretty clear they’re playing divide and rule. We mustn’t take the bait. We can stay moderately friendly in public while ensuring we are repositioning in the areas that matter behind the scenes.
There's definitely element to which Trump's buffoony-rudeness goes down worse in the U.K. than say, the Mediterrenean countries.
Plus, as others have mentioned, there seems to be an added disappointment, here.
And Southern Europe feels much less threatened by Russia than Northern Europe. The results from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland and the Baltics might look very different.
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.
I think I would be looking for A/B analysis ideally down to individual cases. Where have sentencing reports delivered a better outcome, if at all, and what are the circumstances? Maybe they did this already and maybe objectively the common factor is simply ethnicity. I like policies to be evidence-led. Keep sentencing reports if they are effective; don't if not.
There's definitely element to which Trump's buffoony-rudeness goes down worse in the U.K. than say, the Mediterrenean countries.
Plus, as others have mentioned, there seems to be an added disappointment, here.
And Southern Europe feels much less threatened by Russia than Northern Europe. The results from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland and the Baltics might look very different.
The Spanish, Italian and Greek hard-right are also all quite pro-Trump, unlike the centre-right and centre-left in those same countries.
Even Le Pen seems not be as pro-Trump and Putin as some of Meloni's party, for instance. There seems to be a north֊south rather than east-west split, in Europe. Curious.
Yes, also much more anti-Trump. The shift in opinion towards the US here in Britain has been quite dramatic. I was quite surprised to see that UK opinion now seems more hostile to the US than opinion in, say, France. Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
If Starmer is seen to appease Trump, he will be in difficulty with his own supporters.
At the moment I think most people understand the tightrope he’s walking but any hint of Starmer allying more with Trump will see him in trouble . If Starmer is forced to choose between Europe , Zelenskyy and the US and chooses the latter then I’d support his removal as Labour leader and PM .
100%.
I think it’s pretty clear Trump would like the EU to fracture and also for the UK to pull towards the US. This way after we’ve burned our bridges with the EU he can demand anything . Starmer has had a dodgy start as PM but he has on Ukraine come across as genuinely wanting the best for the country and a proper peace deal not a sell out.
I don't see the clues you've spotted that indicates Mr Trump would like the UK to pull towards the US. Do you think his manner towards Sir Keir was conciliatory, or the lack of tariffs meant anything other than he thought tariffs on the EU affected the UK?
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”.
Particularly prevalent at Christmas time.
Does it affect your presentation of cases, or the sheriff’s decisions, in any way?
It tends to be at the Sheriff court level which I have not been involved in for some years but it was definitely a thing 15 years ago. Many sheriffs pretended not to notice or even felt a bit sympathetic.
Consistent and part of the play for her FdI to inherit AN's long standing reputation for being the sensible party of the right, despite being quite populist as well, in contrast to the volatility of Lega and from when Berlusconi owned and ruled Forza.
As I've said a few times now, I think it a suitable template for the Conservatives in taking on Reform.
I think there's another factor. The Mediterrenean countries are generally more ultra-religious and socially cnservative, which feeds Trumpism. Many people in those countries are not, ofcourse, but more than here.
There's definitely element to which Trump's buffoony-rudeness goes down worse in the U.K. than say, the Mediterrenean countries.
Plus, as others have mentioned, there seems to be an added disappointment, here.
And Southern Europe feels much less threatened by Russia than Northern Europe. The results from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland and the Baltics might look very different.
The Spanish, Italian and Greek hard-right are also all quite pro-Trump, unlike the centre-right and centre-left in those same countries.
Even Le Pen seems not be as pro-Trump and Putin as some of Meloni's party, for instance. There seems to be a north֊south rather than east-west split, in Europe. Curious.
I would suggest Catholic / Protestant except the Poles are Catholics. Perhaps it is more to do with exuberance and exaggeration vs reserve and correctness.
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.
I am appalled by this.
We don't see eye to eye on many issues these days, but I tend to regard your capacity to reason as sound, if you often reach conclusions that I think are erroneous.
This is not that - this is a perversion of logic. It is not for the courts to maladminister justice to try to redress some societal imbalance that they have cod-analysed. If more poor black men have committed crimes severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence, then they must be given a custodial sentence - if for public protection alone.
'Having given some thought' is a good one. Perhaps giving such 'thought' is what it takes to be promoted these days.
There's definitely element to which Trump's buffoony-rudeness goes down worse in the U.K. than say, the Mediterrenean countries.
Plus, as others have mentioned, there seems to be an added disappointment, here.
And Southern Europe feels much less threatened by Russia than Northern Europe. The results from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland and the Baltics might look very different.
The Spanish, Italian and Greek hard-right are also all quite pro-Trump, unlike the centre-right and centre-left in those same countries.
Even Le Pen seems not be as pro-Trump and Putin as some of Meloni's party, for instance. There seems to be a north֊south rather than east-west split, in Europe. Curious.
I would suggest Catholic / Protestant except the Poles are Catholics.
Plus the French generally don't like Trump, either. He represents Coca-Cola Americanism and cultural imperialist to many of them, I think.
Excellent! I've been looking for a black site for my retirement. I'll not have much else to do but hunt down and wreak merciless vengeance on all who have slighted me. Does it say how much?
What that poor girl and the rest of her family suffered does not bear thinking about it. And to think that the US President agitated for Tate to be released: 🤬
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”.
Yes and its a well known phenomenon but not what I am getting at. My point is we only now jail people who are already habitual criminals and then point at the recidivism rate to say prison doesn't work....I am wondering if we gave a prison term when they first offend would produce the same recidivism rate.
Anecdotal I know but I grew up in the time of the short sharp shock of borstal and knew people who got sent there and about 2 out of 3 came out vowing never going back there and turned their life round....small sample I know was about 8 people. Six of them are now good members of the community only 2 kept to a more non legal lifestyle
So...
The only study I know is of the Short, Sharp Shock experiment for young offenders in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government. It concluded that by putting inexperienced first time offenders alongside hardened crims mostly resulted in a flow of knowledge about the best way to rob a post office to the younger offenders.
There has to be a way to do it better, but I would suggest the easier fruit is speeding up the criminal justice system. Human beings have very high discount rates (and the stupider you are the higher it is), and the threat of a court case in five years time *if* you are caught is simply a terrible deterrent.
It's perhaps a good job he's chummy with the Russians. Otherwise, in his paranoid state, he might just be tempted to use his nukes to lash out at someone.
Oh dear. That’s Peroni and Barolo on the Fairliered blacklist along with Coca Cola, Pepsi, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Can anyone suggest an alternative to good Parmesan?
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.
I am appalled by this.
We don't see eye to eye on many issues these days, but I tend to regard your capacity to reason as sound, if you often reach conclusions that I think are erroneous.
This is not that - this is a perversion of logic. It is not for the courts to maladminister justice to try to redress some societal imbalance that they have cod-analysed. If more poor black men have committed crimes severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence, then they must be given a custodial sentence - if for public protection alone.
'Having given some thought' is a good one. Perhaps giving such 'thought' is what it takes to be promoted these days.
But wait, racist anti-white sentencing laws make him a bit "twitchy", so that's OK
Monday - Roll back tariffs Tuesday - Reinstate tariffs Wednesday - Roll back tariffs Thursday - Reinstate tariffs Friday - Roll back tariffs Saturday - Golf Sunday - Golf
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”.
Yes and its a well known phenomenon but not what I am getting at. My point is we only now jail people who are already habitual criminals and then point at the recidivism rate to say prison doesn't work....I am wondering if we gave a prison term when they first offend would produce the same recidivism rate.
Anecdotal I know but I grew up in the time of the short sharp shock of borstal and knew people who got sent there and about 2 out of 3 came out vowing never going back there and turned their life round....small sample I know was about 8 people. Six of them are now good members of the community only 2 kept to a more non legal lifestyle
So...
The only study I know is of the Short, Sharp Shock experiment for young offenders in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government. It concluded that by putting inexperienced first time offenders alongside hardened crims mostly resulted in a flow of knowledge about the best way to rob a post office to the younger offenders.
There has to be a way to do it better, but I would suggest the easier fruit is speeding up the criminal justice system. Human beings have very high discount rates (and the stupider you are the higher it is), and the threat of a court case in five years time *if* you are caught is simply a terrible deterrent.
The answer is a new form of corporal punishment. Electric shocks, temporary blindness, drugs that send you mad for two days, virtual reality hell for a fortnight, we are surely capable of devising improvements on the stocks, and flogging and the scold's bridle. Things that really hurt, and deter, but are really cheap to do, and inflict no permanent physical or mental impairment other than: the fear of not having to endure that again
This solves everything. I have zero idea why we are so allergic to this, other than some irrational fear of appearing medieval and cruel, whereas - and I can speak from experience - locking people up in tiny brick boxes for years on end (what we do now) is about as ancient and cruel and tortuous as it comes, and sends people mad (and costs loads of money and mixes the relatively innocent with the evil)
Oh dear. That’s Peroni and Barolo on the Fairliered blacklist along with Coca Cola, Pepsi, Budweiser and Jack Daniels. Can anyone suggest an alternative to good Parmesan?
I have just been away from the news for a couple of hours and each time I catch up everything gets worse
Where on earth is this going to end ??
Maybe it will end up degenerating into farce. There seems to be a realistic chance that various nations will re-industrialise creating jobs. Certainly it's breaking the moulds we've worked with for many decades. I'm wondering how US troops in the UK are seeing it.
BREAKING: the U.S. District Court in D.C. has found that Trump’s firing of former NLRB Chair Gwynne A. Wilcox’s firing was unlawful, and ruled that she must be immediately reinstated to serve out the rest of her term as a board member.
President Trump, cryptically, in the Oval Office says of a deal with Ukraine: "Russia wants to make a deal because in a certain different way -- a different way that only I know. Only I know -- they have no choice either."
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”.
Yes and its a well known phenomenon but not what I am getting at. My point is we only now jail people who are already habitual criminals and then point at the recidivism rate to say prison doesn't work....I am wondering if we gave a prison term when they first offend would produce the same recidivism rate.
Anecdotal I know but I grew up in the time of the short sharp shock of borstal and knew people who got sent there and about 2 out of 3 came out vowing never going back there and turned their life round....small sample I know was about 8 people. Six of them are now good members of the community only 2 kept to a more non legal lifestyle
So...
The only study I know is of the Short, Sharp Shock experiment for young offenders in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government. It concluded that by putting inexperienced first time offenders alongside hardened crims mostly resulted in a flow of knowledge about the best way to rob a post office to the younger offenders.
There has to be a way to do it better, but I would suggest the easier fruit is speeding up the criminal justice system. Human beings have very high discount rates (and the stupider you are the higher it is), and the threat of a court case in five years time *if* you are caught is simply a terrible deterrent.
The answer is a new form of corporal punishment. Electric shocks, temporary blindness, drugs that send you mad for two days, virtual reality hell for a fortnight, we are surely capable of devising improvements on the stocks, and flogging and the scold's bridle. Things that really hurt, and deter, but are really cheap to do, and inflict no permanent physical or mental impairment other than: the fear of not having to endure that again
This solves everything. I have zero idea why we are so allergic to this, other than some irrational fear of appearing medieval and cruel, whereas - and I can speak from experience - locking people up in tiny brick boxes for years on end (what we do now) is about as ancient and cruel and tortuous as it comes, and sends people mad (and costs loads of money and mixes the relatively innocent with the evil)
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”.
Yes and its a well known phenomenon but not what I am getting at. My point is we only now jail people who are already habitual criminals and then point at the recidivism rate to say prison doesn't work....I am wondering if we gave a prison term when they first offend would produce the same recidivism rate.
Anecdotal I know but I grew up in the time of the short sharp shock of borstal and knew people who got sent there and about 2 out of 3 came out vowing never going back there and turned their life round....small sample I know was about 8 people. Six of them are now good members of the community only 2 kept to a more non legal lifestyle
So...
The only study I know is of the Short, Sharp Shock experiment for young offenders in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government. It concluded that by putting inexperienced first time offenders alongside hardened crims mostly resulted in a flow of knowledge about the best way to rob a post office to the younger offenders.
There has to be a way to do it better, but I would suggest the easier fruit is speeding up the criminal justice system. Human beings have very high discount rates (and the stupider you are the higher it is), and the threat of a court case in five years time *if* you are caught is simply a terrible deterrent.
I remember being told years ago that Saudi Arabia which had a policy of cutting a hand off for theft statistically had many times fewer thefts than comparable nations that used prison as their chosen punishment and very few without hands. I'm not sure what that tells us.
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.
I am appalled by this.
We don't see eye to eye on many issues these days, but I tend to regard your capacity to reason as sound, if you often reach conclusions that I think are erroneous.
This is not that - this is a perversion of logic. It is not for the courts to maladminister justice to try to redress some societal imbalance that they have cod-analysed. If more poor black men have committed crimes severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence, then they must be given a custodial sentence - if for public protection alone.
'Having given some thought' is a good one. Perhaps giving such 'thought' is what it takes to be promoted these days.
But wait, racist anti-white sentencing laws make him a bit "twitchy", so that's OK
Britain and France reunited in anti-Atlanticism, and formerly cold war anti-Americans in the Mediterranean being more favourable to the Orange leader Who'd have thought it.
Musk isn't in the Cabinet and none of those that are have any say over him as he is a) co-president and/or b) not an administration official at all. Someone who works from home in Tennessee is supposedly running DOGE. He isn't officially they claim.
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.
I am appalled by this.
We don't see eye to eye on many issues these days, but I tend to regard your capacity to reason as sound, if you often reach conclusions that I think are erroneous.
This is not that - this is a perversion of logic. It is not for the courts to maladminister justice to try to redress some societal imbalance that they have cod-analysed. If more poor black men have committed crimes severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence, then they must be given a custodial sentence - if for public protection alone.
'Having given some thought' is a good one. Perhaps giving such 'thought' is what it takes to be promoted these days.
But wait, racist anti-white sentencing laws make him a bit "twitchy", so that's OK
It's just integrity leaving the body.
That's a brilliant analogy
I believe these pre-death rhapsodies often occur in lawyers entering late middle age, pre-retirement, when it just seems so much easier to - you know - go with the flow, don't make a fuss....
Comments
Trump is thick enough not to have worked this out.
And pathetic enough to fold when, someone with sufficient autonomy tells him to fuck off with his opening gambit.
It must be the Scottish context, plus the reference to drilling and engineering: some weird mental glitch that infers "Brunel"
Anecdotal I know but I grew up in the time of the short sharp shock of borstal and knew people who got sent there and about 2 out of 3 came out vowing never going back there and turned their life round....small sample I know was about 8 people. Six of them are now good members of the community only 2 kept to a more non legal lifestyle
I don't fancy the chances of fighter #5.
I was going through some files and found this representation of the old Navy Fleet Air Defense mission Victor Lima using the method known as "Chain Saw". This was still in practice when I first started in the fleet in 1993 but it quickly faded.
But this was the primary fleet defense tactic for the Soviets during the 80s. The boat had two Tomcat squadrons of 14 jets each, so they could put some serious A/A ordnance at the pointy end of the chain saw. Any Soviet attempt to take out the carrier would need a LOT of Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks.
It's pretty interesting being THAT far from the boat (where the food and your stereo are)...
https://x.com/RSE_VB/status/1897710024937365913
Yes some locals felt a bit Russian, and back then some Ukrainians wanted to be close to Russia. But still, some soldiers who were not Ukrainian crossed the border, and that’s that.
https://x.com/yougov/status/1897634189329022976?s=46
Addressing this by race is solving the wrong problem.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/qualifying-and-education/career-support-and-advice/career-pathways/applying-to-be-a-sheriffsummary-sheriff/
Trump really triggers us here, I think it's something to do with the bullying and the vulgarity. From a British perspective Trump is like all the worst elements of American culture, distilled in one person. It's a shame because there is much to admire about the US but those days may now be gone.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/donald-trump-threat-to-peace-ukraine-talks-survey-western-europeans
You could address this shit without engaging in reverse shit. And it would be considerably less unpopular.
Instead of a 95% figure (which is the "can speak" data, basically), the figure I should have quoted for NZ is 76%. So here is the table with revised stats!
English as "main" or "home" language:
NZ 95% (2023)
UK 91% (2021)
Ireland 83% (2022)
USA 78% (2020)
NZ 76% (2023)
Aus 72% (2021)
Can 68% (2021)
rising star:
Singapore 48% (2020), was 32% (2010).
During the US campaign, Robert (I think) linked to a Nate Silver article that started with a photo of a row of billboards along the freeway, billboards for competing lawyers - picture better call Saul billboards - the lawyers presenting themselves as fighters, who know the court room ring craft, and how to come away with the win - the point being, the whole of the Trump campaign was based on this, and little else.
Call me. I’m your fighter. We’ll win together. I’ll deliver for you.
And with US voters it works.
The cheesy, manga tinged (though not as naff as Netflix One Piece) video you linked to, is just a riff on the same electoral tactic. Perhaps too easily laughed at and dismissed (unlike Netflix One Piece).
Vulgarity is something of a neutral quality, which can be fine, if linked with more positive qualities.
It’s not as though we hold TSE’s shoe choices against him in any serious manner.
Telegraph:
Volodymyr Zelensky has backed plans for a partial truce to test whether Vladimir Putin is prepared to end his war on Ukraine.
Senior Ukrainian and US officials will discuss the air, sea and critical infrastructure, as well as a large-scale prisoner exchange between Kyiv and Moscow, at a meeting in Saudi Arabia next week. The framework for the truce was first proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.
“We all need to feel that the Russians are not deceiving us,” the Ukrainian president wrote online after meeting with EU leaders in Brussels today.
And the winner is Muccia the Italian whippet, with the Afghan in second, third place to the wolf hound and fourth the pharaoh.
Both group winners so far are dogs from Italy
That's a very end-of-an-era kind of thing.
Plus, as others have mentioned, there seems to be an added disappointment, here.
Net favourability of...
Donald Trump
UK: -65
Spain: -56
France: -53
Italy: -36
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1897634189329022976
How many people in Western Europe say they want Ukraine to win and care that it does so?
UK: 67%
Spain: 57%
Germany: 52%
France: 50%
Italy: 34%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1897634202100601337
How willing are Europeans to send peacekeepers to Ukraine?
Spain: 53% (+25 net)
Britain: 52% (+25)
France: 49% (+20)
Germany: 37% (-10)
Italy: 36% (-9)
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1897634209159659818
% saying defence spending is too low in...
UK: 46%
France: 39%
Spain: 32%
Italy: 11%
Germany: 45% (asked in Dec)
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1897634219221721457
Even Le Pen seems not be as pro-Trump and Putin as some of Meloni's party, for instance. There seems to be a north֊south rather than east-west split, in Europe.
Curious.
As I've said a few times now, I think it a suitable template for the Conservatives in taking on Reform.
The Mediterrenean countries are generally more ultra-religious and socially cnservative, which feeds Trumpism. Many people in those countries are not, ofcourse, but more than here.
https://x.com/thestalwart/status/1897745749321916420
*TRUMP: GLOBALISTS ARE BEHIND STOCK SELL OFF
We don't see eye to eye on many issues these days, but I tend to regard your capacity to reason as sound, if you often reach conclusions that I think are erroneous.
This is not that - this is a perversion of logic. It is not for the courts to maladminister justice to try to redress some societal imbalance that they have cod-analysed. If more poor black men have committed crimes severe enough to warrant a custodial sentence, then they must be given a custodial sentence - if for public protection alone.
'Having given some thought' is a good one. Perhaps giving such 'thought' is what it takes to be promoted these days.
@kyledcheney
NEWS: Trump abruptly assembled his cabinet today to let them know Elon MUSK is not in charge of hiring/firing -- they are.
It was an abrupt admonition that appeared aimed at the mounting legal scrutiny of Musk's power over the government.
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1897723202798747837
@ProjectLincoln
Folks, we're just a few weeks away from "I don't know who Elon Musk is."
DOGE effort to sell off federal properties inadvertently exposes CIA black site in Northern Virginia — Bloomberg TV
I'll not have much else to do but hunt down and wreak merciless vengeance on all who have slighted me.
Does it say how much?
What that poor girl and the rest of her family suffered does not bear thinking about it. And to think that the US President agitated for Tate to be released: 🤬
The only study I know is of the Short, Sharp Shock experiment for young offenders in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government. It concluded that by putting inexperienced first time offenders alongside hardened crims mostly resulted in a flow of knowledge about the best way to rob a post office to the younger offenders.
There has to be a way to do it better, but I would suggest the easier fruit is speeding up the criminal justice system. Human beings have very high discount rates (and the stupider you are the higher it is), and the threat of a court case in five years time *if* you are caught is simply a terrible deterrent.
BREAKING: Job losses spiked a whopping 245% in February.
This is higher than any month since July 2020 (the middle of pandemic) and the highest in any February since the Great Recession of 2009.
https://bsky.app/profile/newrepublic.com/post/3ljpxksddyu22
Monday - Roll back tariffs
Tuesday - Reinstate tariffs
Wednesday - Roll back tariffs
Thursday - Reinstate tariffs
Friday - Roll back tariffs
Saturday - Golf
Sunday - Golf
Where on earth is this going to end ??
This solves everything. I have zero idea why we are so allergic to this, other than some irrational fear of appearing medieval and cruel, whereas - and I can speak from experience - locking people up in tiny brick boxes for years on end (what we do now) is about as ancient and cruel and tortuous as it comes, and sends people mad (and costs loads of money and mixes the relatively innocent with the evil)
It is scarily plausible. And he is no fool:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/professor-david-j-betz
@GrimKim
BREAKING: the U.S. District Court in D.C. has found that Trump’s firing of former NLRB Chair Gwynne A. Wilcox’s firing was unlawful, and ruled that she must be immediately reinstated to serve out the rest of her term as a board member.
As Betz makes clear, the UK government is quite insanely bad at putting a lid on this, and everything they do seems to make it worse
Tesla is ratnered. The Starlink deal cancellation is confirmed.
He will still be a very rich man (if he is not in jail) but his reputation can't survive this shitshow IMHO
@mviser
President Trump, cryptically, in the Oval Office says of a deal with Ukraine: "Russia wants to make a deal because in a certain different way -- a different way that only I know. Only I know -- they have no choice either."
https://us.v-cdn.net/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,width=1600/https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/yk/r4tnzdxeat27.jpeg
Kellogg, for the first time, dropped the pretense. Reset with Russia, no advantage for Ukraine, the U.S. as a neutral broker.
Cutting military aid is pressure to force Ukraine to the table.
And bluntly - Ukraine brought it on itself. You don’t contradict President Trump
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1897744211199639598
“ We are fighting against a dictator backed by a traitor “.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7q4nBHxWNk
Meanwhile...
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1897738075452981347
Who'd have thought it.
I believe these pre-death rhapsodies often occur in lawyers entering late middle age, pre-retirement, when it just seems so much easier to - you know - go with the flow, don't make a fuss....