"Britain has failed to sign a letter from a string of countries demanding reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland all said there was a need to 'look at' the influence of Strasbourg judges.
The leaders of the nine countries penned an open letter calling for 'more freedom'."
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
"Britain has failed to sign a letter from a string of countries demanding reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland all said there was a need to 'look at' the influence of Strasbourg judges.
The leaders of the nine countries penned an open letter calling for 'more freedom'."
"Hamit Coskun has been found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence, namely, disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, because he burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate."
Would burning the bible outside Westminster Abbey have the same result?
It should do yes if done outside a Christian place of worship on the law the CPS and courts have applied here in applying the PO Act
There is a problem with that, as this tweet suggests.
UK public order law says that you are culpable if, in speech and other expressive acts, you could "provoke" others into violence. We have written a veto on speech into law that is exclusively available to groups willing to be violent. https://x.com/s8mb/status/1929519058556187116
It's a charter which encourages the extremists in any given group to resort to violence in order to set limits on free speech for everyone else.
Clearly policing speech designed to encourage violence is not a simple problem, but it seems that we have got the balance wrong here,
Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
A key witness, one of the medics, may well have lied on oath, or at least has said something different to what he wrote in an email at the time of the events. That's quite compelling. There are a large number of experts in neonatal care who believe it possible for ALL the deaths to be explained without without recourse to human interference. They may be wrong. Or those asserting that some or all of the babies were murdered may be wrong. Its somewhat alarming that we cannot truly be sure if murders have actually occurred.
I have no idea why the legal team did not have their own experts to assert that the deaths were natural, but you would imagine it was part of a strategy. But what?
I'd be interested to see what exactly the govt has in mind for "war fighting readiness".
HMF are currently around 130k strong (fewer than the army during Op Banner days).
SKS says he wants "pay rises and a stronger reserve" (the reserve is currently 40k-odd).
And paying people more and doing something to the reserve is going to put us on a war fighting footing.
I find that an interesting approach. If they want HMF to be war fighting ready then they are going to have to increase significantly the number of people in uniform as their day job plus provide sufficient equipment for as many battle groups the govt thinks is required for whatever it is we want to do. Which, of course, we still aren't really sure but that's another issue.
I don't see this as being part of the new and exciting road map.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
Nah, the liability for that lies entirely with the motorcyclist, even in your hypothetical scenario. Could have been a cow, a horse rider, a tractor, whatever. You've got to leave yourself time to react and stop on those country roads.
The lefties who devised the policy predicted 0.37% would leave
Remember the Golden Rule, everything this government does sooner or later damages the UK
One third of non doms left after the Brexit vote so 10% is a drop in the ocean and maybe we'll get some taxes out of the rest this time. Well done, lefties, much less damaging than those Leave voters.
Brexit was done for reasons of democracy and sovereignty; we had to pay a price
The non Doms policy change was made to raise taxes - no other reason - and it looks like it will fail badly on its own terms
Actually I agree with you. Protecting non-doms would be a stupid reason not to Brexit and Leavers presumably had reasons for their vote that made sense to them at the time.
In general I welcome immigrants, possibly including non-doms, when they contribute to British society, including paying their taxes. You have to set a price, you can't just rely on favours and good will. For any product, a price that everyone is willing to pay is a product valued too low. 10% refusal might be OK.
Most of the Non Doms damage was done by Humt trying to get in ahead of Reeves to leave her with no head run.
Reeves does of course get the blame as the press that exists only looks at now and ignores even recent history
60 wickets in 19 tests - not a bad haul. Shoaib Bashir, who is very much in favour, has 58 from 16. Jack Leach has 142 from 39. I wonder why Rashid never really got going where Bashir has - possibly the captain/coach dynamic. The current set up seem to be the most supportive that I can remember. Comfort blanket for the players. I feel a bit for Leach - its not as if Bashir adds to the team's batting (despite a reputation that he CAN bat).
He struggled as a test bowler, with a dodgy shoulder that precluded long spells, but I think you're right he'd have done better with more support.
I quoted Leach and Bashir's figures as a comparison. All much of a muchness. I think perceptions are a key part and he was always perceived as expensive in a way that Leach wasn't. Bashir's test career is astonishing given that he isn't a regular for his county.
Watched some test series on BT sport with Matt Prior commentating. Leach was the main spin bowler, with Lawrence bowling his occasional spin. Prior did a video comparison showing how much more movement Lawrence got in the air due to the higher revs he put on the ball. I think England have suffered from a perception that spin bowlers are for containment rather than wicket-taking.
Unless they're exceptional at wicket taking, then they have to be decent at both things. Rashid's problem (apart from confidence/lack of support) was the physical limitations of his shoulder, which made bowling long spells problematic.
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I don't think Leon has voted to leave NATO, and the continent of Europe of which we are a part was still there when I looked this morning.
But he did vote to leave stuff like Euratom and Erasmus and he is itching to join Russia and Belarus and leave the Churchillian ECHR.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
If you're going round a blind corner fast enough that you can't stop in time if it turns out there is something in the way then you were taking it too fast.
We've all done it, I expect, but the fact remains the same. I modified my driving after an argument with a deer in the dark on back roads that I knew well - I knew the corner and knew (I thought) the speed at which it could be taken safely. I ended up showered with bits of windscreen and a couple of cuts, was lucky really - the deer less so. A few seconds later another car came round the corner behind me, as I was exiting the vehicle, fortunately taking it at a more appropriate speed and came to a stop - just - without also smacking into my car or me.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
The second part was about reckless car-drivers. Anyway I'm glad you no longer drive, you're supposed to be able to stop in the distance you can see. The motorcyclist was lucky that he hit a cyclist and not something more solid than him, if he'd come round the corner and hit a car / tractor / horse / pedestrian (five rucksack toting kids on a DoE weekend) no one would blame the other party. You're just typically anti-cyclist. The cyclist was just very lucky with how the collision occurred wrt the consequences, no head contact with the motorcyclist, road or other hard object.
It would be interesting to see like for like figures. With the Model Y the best-selling car globally last year and not on sale in the same period this year, it is no wonder that the figures look dire.
June will be a better comparison with deliveries of the new car now properly under way.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The trouble with the cultural thing is that unfortunately it's at least somewhat true.
I was involved in a saga with a Nigerian chap in his 40s plus his wife and teenage son who turned up during the Boriswave to work in a local care home. Several of us at church tried to help and support them in various ways.
He asked me about buying a car - I showed him some listings on autotrader which might possibly have fitted his needs and budget, just to give him an idea of what he might get for his money. Next thing I know he's bought one of the ones I'd shown him - blind. 18 year old Skoda Octavia diesel estate. Rather to my surprise, it was actually quite a solid tidy car - clearly my bangernomics instincts weren't too bad.
That was the easy bit. Despite various of us impressing on him the need for tax and insurance, and it becoming apparent that his Nigerian license wasn't valid (he'd been in the UK too long) he's been cheerfully driving round in it for six months now without any of these. All good until he hits someone, or the plod take an interest and he gets his collar felt.
This isn't a racist observation, but he's got a cultural problem - he doesn't understand what is and isn't acceptable in our culture. Being blunt, I think he thinks that if he gets stopped by the old flatfoot he'll be able to offer them £50in cash to make them go away.
I don't bear him any malice, but it's blindingly obvious that importing lots of people like him who don't get uk culture is just creating problems. One quality run in with law and we'll be spending more on his prosecution than he's paid in tax in ten years.
If he kills someone you will feel pretty shitty for not daubing him in. If he was running about with guns or machetes I am sure you would. Clown at best will wreck some poor sods car and cost him a fortune or at worst kill people.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
I think those people just be serving lengthy driving bans - not prison sentences.
No, you can be imprisoned for negligence if people die on your paddleboarding trip, as an example, speeding on a country road is a similar, if not higher, degree of negligence and there is a high chance they'll drive while disqualified.
I was rather shocked by the prison sentence for the paddle boarding firm owner tbh. I take your point, but I would class that as dangerous driving and imprisonable if it causes a death.
In my ideal world, such drivers would have been slapped with huge fines, bans and confiscations before they ever got to that stage.
I'd be interested to see what exactly the govt has in mind for "war fighting readiness".
HMF are currently around 130k strong (fewer than the army during Op Banner days).
SKS says he wants "pay rises and a stronger reserve" (the reserve is currently 40k-odd).
And paying people more and doing something to the reserve is going to put us on a war fighting footing.
I find that an interesting approach. If they want HMF to be war fighting ready then they are going to have to increase significantly the number of people in uniform as their day job plus provide sufficient equipment for as many battle groups the govt thinks is required for whatever it is we want to do. Which, of course, we still aren't really sure but that's another issue.
I don't see this as being part of the new and exciting road map.
I don't think they've really even worked out what sort of war(s) they might have to fight.
Some of the ideas in the review aren't stupid, but it's not exactly a coherent whole.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
like shoplifting etc , they know it is cheaper and easier to get nicked , a year or two to get to court and they jsut buy another cheap car.
"Britain has failed to sign a letter from a string of countries demanding reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland all said there was a need to 'look at' the influence of Strasbourg judges.
The leaders of the nine countries penned an open letter calling for 'more freedom'."
What about our great return of sovereignty, anyone and everyone is allowed to crap all over the UK
Do you want us to leave the ECHR?
I have yet to see a reasoned argument for or against but given the furore about how we took back our sovereignty and yet these people can order us about like dogs, just seems a bit odd. For sure it needs updating given it was made many many moons ago in a different world and we shoudl not be a dumping ground for any Tom , Dick or Harry that arrives in the country. You woudl not accept any old stranger turning up at your front door and saying I am going to live here and you will feed and clothe me. It is about as sane as saying we should be using horses and carts because we did 100 years ago.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
The second part was about reckless car-drivers. Anyway I'm glad you no longer drive, you're supposed to be able to stop in the distance you can see. The motorcyclist was lucky that he hit a cyclist and not something more solid than him, if he'd come round the corner and hit a car / tractor / horse / pedestrian (five rucksack toting kids on a DoE weekend) no one would blame the other party. You're just typically anti-cyclist. The cyclist was just very lucky with how the collision occurred wrt the consequences, no head contact with the motorcyclist, road or other hard object.
It does seem a bit mad for a motorcyclist to be moaning about cyclists in such general terms. There were a number of overtakes at the weekend I cautioned against because I thought: what happens if a bunch of bikes come round the upcoming corner at 80mph?
So I was stuck behind a lorry from Loch Laggan to Dalwhinnie. So be it.
The lefties who devised the policy predicted 0.37% would leave
Remember the Golden Rule, everything this government does sooner or later damages the UK
One third of non doms left after the Brexit vote so 10% is a drop in the ocean and maybe we'll get some taxes out of the rest this time. Well done, lefties, much less damaging than those Leave voters.
Brexit was done for reasons of democracy and sovereignty; we had to pay a price
The non Doms policy change was made to raise taxes - no other reason - and it looks like it will fail badly on its own terms
Actually I agree with you. Protecting non-doms would be a stupid reason not to Brexit and Leavers presumably had reasons for their vote that made sense to them at the time.
In general I welcome immigrants, possibly including non-doms, when they contribute to British society, including paying their taxes. You have to set a price, you can't just rely on favours and good will. For any product, a price that everyone is willing to pay is a product valued too low. 10% refusal might be OK.
Most of the Non Doms damage was done by Humt trying to get in ahead of Reeves to leave her with no head run.
Reeves does of course get the blame as the press that exists only looks at now and ignores even recent history
Although I don't think we should have based our Brexit vote in what happens to non-doms, and nobody did, I do think non-Doms were one of the many canaries in the Brexit mine.
That one third of them decided Britain was no longer a place they wanted to be in should tell us something about Brexit.
My ideal would be that the UK was such an attractive place in ways that benefit everyone - low crime rate, cohesive society, excellent public services, high quality education, beautifully maintained environment etc - that non Doms would be happy to pay loads of taxes to stay here.
Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
A key witness, one of the medics, may well have lied on oath, or at least has said something different to what he wrote in an email at the time of the events. That's quite compelling. There are a large number of experts in neonatal care who believe it possible for ALL the deaths to be explained without without recourse to human interference. They may be wrong. Or those asserting that some or all of the babies were murdered may be wrong. Its somewhat alarming that we cannot truly be sure if murders have actually occurred.
I have no idea why the legal team did not have their own experts to assert that the deaths were natural, but you would imagine it was part of a strategy. But what?
Largely agree. The stuff about new evidence of a witness lying is straightforward CCRC material for them to consider and refer if they so decide; this along with fresh expert evidence.
There is no such thing as a strategy of seeking to achieve a not guilty verdict by not using expert evidence which would help bring this about. They decided not to call it twice. The lawyers are not dim, but they are not allowed to comment unless Letby allows them to.
This is why the absence of an explanation is central to not being able to comprehend the case. Until there is a better explanation, conclude for now that the evidence they had would have done harm or done no good.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
Nah, the liability for that lies entirely with the motorcyclist, even in your hypothetical scenario. Could have been a cow, a horse rider, a tractor, whatever. You've got to leave yourself time to react and stop on those country roads.
True, but our friend was describing the motor-cyclist as 'treating that country road like a race-track'. But the point you two make is a fair one.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Are you letting Just Stop Oil out too?
If someone from Just Stop Oil had been imprisoned for tweeting “people can cause traffic chaos, disrupt cities, stop people taking their kids to hospital and the rest of it for all I care” that would be terrible, but they actually did those things. Even then their sentences seem a bit much
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The trouble with the cultural thing is that unfortunately it's at least somewhat true.
I was involved in a saga with a Nigerian chap in his 40s plus his wife and teenage son who turned up during the Boriswave to work in a local care home. Several of us at church tried to help and support them in various ways.
He asked me about buying a car - I showed him some listings on autotrader which might possibly have fitted his needs and budget, just to give him an idea of what he might get for his money. Next thing I know he's bought one of the ones I'd shown him - blind. 18 year old Skoda Octavia diesel estate. Rather to my surprise, it was actually quite a solid tidy car - clearly my bangernomics instincts weren't too bad.
That was the easy bit. Despite various of us impressing on him the need for tax and insurance, and it becoming apparent that his Nigerian license wasn't valid (he'd been in the UK too long) he's been cheerfully driving round in it for six months now without any of these. All good until he hits someone, or the plod take an interest and he gets his collar felt.
This isn't a racist observation, but he's got a cultural problem - he doesn't understand what is and isn't acceptable in our culture. Being blunt, I think he thinks that if he gets stopped by the old flatfoot he'll be able to offer them £50in cash to make them go away.
I don't bear him any malice, but it's blindingly obvious that importing lots of people like him who don't get uk culture is just creating problems. One quality run in with law and we'll be spending more on his prosecution than he's paid in tax in ten years.
If he kills someone you will feel pretty shitty for not daubing him in. If he was running about with guns or machetes I am sure you would. Clown at best will wreck some poor sods car and cost him a fortune or at worst kill people.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Why aren't you a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death?
The lefties who devised the policy predicted 0.37% would leave
Remember the Golden Rule, everything this government does sooner or later damages the UK
One third of non doms left after the Brexit vote so 10% is a drop in the ocean and maybe we'll get some taxes out of the rest this time. Well done, lefties, much less damaging than those Leave voters.
Brexit was done for reasons of democracy and sovereignty; we had to pay a price
The non Doms policy change was made to raise taxes - no other reason - and it looks like it will fail badly on its own terms
Actually I agree with you. Protecting non-doms would be a stupid reason not to Brexit and Leavers presumably had reasons for their vote that made sense to them at the time.
In general I welcome immigrants, possibly including non-doms, when they contribute to British society, including paying their taxes. You have to set a price, you can't just rely on favours and good will. For any product, a price that everyone is willing to pay is a product valued too low. 10% refusal might be OK.
Most of the Non Doms damage was done by Humt trying to get in ahead of Reeves to leave her with no head run.
Reeves does of course get the blame as the press that exists only looks at now and ignores even recent history
Yes, Hunt did most of the damage. Reeves went a little further but has rowed back a little bit since then.
Reeves has been a poor chancellor but, like other ministers, she is also having to deal with the legacy of the total clusterfuck of the last govt.
Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
So what? If the contention is the criminal justice system is flawed, why are Letby's lawyers exempt from that?
If the contention is that lawyers (and doctors) do not understand statistics and probability, why are Letby's lawyers exceptions?
If the medical expert panel was convened as a reaction to the court decision, how could Letby's lawyers possibly have called its evidence?
However, for most people, I suspect the takeaway is this is just another example of broken Britain.
Either a killer nurse was allowed to murder babies for years with no-one noticing, or there is abundant evidence of a miscarriage of justice but apparently it cannot be fixed.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Are you letting Just Stop Oil out too?
If someone from Just Stop Oil had been imprisoned for tweeting “people can cause traffic chaos, disrupt cities, stop people taking their kids to hospital and the rest of it for all I care” that would be terrible, but they actually did those things. Even then their sentences seem a bit much
From my understanding the reason they were jailed for those sentences were more because they had previously on multiple occasions been to court for the same thing and bound over not to do it and repeatedly breached the orders and after the first few times it was ok jail time
The lefties who devised the policy predicted 0.37% would leave
Remember the Golden Rule, everything this government does sooner or later damages the UK
One third of non doms left after the Brexit vote so 10% is a drop in the ocean and maybe we'll get some taxes out of the rest this time. Well done, lefties, much less damaging than those Leave voters.
Brexit was done for reasons of democracy and sovereignty; we had to pay a price
The non Doms policy change was made to raise taxes - no other reason - and it looks like it will fail badly on its own terms
Actually I agree with you. Protecting non-doms would be a stupid reason not to Brexit and Leavers presumably had reasons for their vote that made sense to them at the time.
In general I welcome immigrants, possibly including non-doms, when they contribute to British society, including paying their taxes. You have to set a price, you can't just rely on favours and good will. For any product, a price that everyone is willing to pay is a product valued too low. 10% refusal might be OK.
Most of the Non Doms damage was done by Humt trying to get in ahead of Reeves to leave her with no head run.
Reeves does of course get the blame as the press that exists only looks at now and ignores even recent history
Although I don't think we should have based our Brexit vote in what happens to non-doms, and nobody did, I do think non-Doms were one of the many canaries in the Brexit mine.
That one third of them decided Britain was no longer a place they wanted to be in should tell us something about Brexit.
My ideal would be that the UK was such an attractive place in ways that benefit everyone - low crime rate, cohesive society, excellent public services, high quality education, beautifully maintained environment etc - that non Doms would be happy to pay loads of taxes to stay here.
The decline in the number of non-doms in 2016 had nothing whatever to do with Brexit, and everything to do with the big non-dom rule changes the government canvassed in 2016 and introduced in 2017. They included most non-dom property assets within inheritance tax and changed the definition to correspond to the wider capital gains tax definition. They also introduced various changes to the definition of connected person and other anti-avoidance measures. And they fiddled around with the definition of non-dom in various ways too complicated to go into here.
This is a summary if you're interested in the more obscure parts of our over-complicated and loophole-ridden tax code.
The overall effect was to reduce significantly the incentive to becoming a non-dom.
The main point of the changes to non-dom status over the last decade is to show that, however stupid the last government was, the current government somehow manages to take it several stages further.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Why aren't you a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death?
It's consistent with my view about prison sentences in all circumstances, not just driving.
I don't think they are much of a deterrent. People who carelessly pull out of a junction and kill someone aren't taking the possibility of a prison sentence into account when failing to look properly. For me, the behaviour that leads to mistakes needs to be caught much earlier, and punished with bans and fines. Perhaps random re-testing too.
In contrast, driving at 70mph past a primary school is a conscious decision, and should be punished accordingly. I guess the exact location of the line differs by person.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
So what? If the contention is the criminal justice system is flawed, why are Letby's lawyers exempt from that?
If the contention is that lawyers (and doctors) do not understand statistics and probability, why are Letby's lawyers exceptions?
If the medical expert panel was convened as a reaction to the court decision, how could Letby's lawyers possibly have called its evidence?
However, for most people, I suspect the takeaway is this is just another example of broken Britain.
Either a killer nurse was allowed to murder babies for years with no-one noticing, or there is abundant evidence of a miscarriage of justice but apparently it cannot be fixed.
Your points:
1) Lawyers are not immune from criticism 2) I am not aware that either side in the trial relied on statistical probabilities in the sense of expert evidence 3) Trials are what they are. Obviously Letby's lawyers obtained expert evidence. As it was not used we cannot know what they would have said, unless Letby gives permission. SFAICS she hasn't 4) The CCRC and Court of Appeal exist to sort miscarriages of justice. Neither is perfect.
With your more polemical points I have some sympathy.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I don't think Leon has voted to leave NATO, and the continent of Europe of which we are a part was still there when I looked this morning.
But he did vote to leave stuff like Euratom and Erasmus and he is itching to join Russia and Belarus and leave the Churchillian ECHR.
Erasmus doesn't require EU membership. It also involves North Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey.
I’ve just been invited on an insane luxury cruise along the entire Japanese archipelago
Yes or no? I’m swaying towards Yes. Dunno why. Just got a weird feeling that Yes is the way to go. Or no?
They say you should always say Yes. But what if I get some kind of weird caviar poisoning? Or I fall out of the personal hot air balloon with butler as it floats over the Golden Pavilion?
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
A funny knock-on effect of Ukraine's drone attacks on Russia yesterday: Now there's huge queues of trucks backed up across Russia, as authorities scramble to search their cargo for the possibility of more hidden drones.
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
A funny knock-on effect of Ukraine's drone attacks on Russia yesterday: Now there's huge queues of trucks backed up across Russia, as authorities scramble to search their cargo for the possibility of more hidden drones.
Next step: a few Ukrainian remote control bombs in trucks would cause huge collateral damage to those queues - and make transport across the breadth of Russia damned near impossible.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
It will be interesting to read the sentencing notes when they are released?
It was a magistrate court and the actual sentence was for causing a scene outside the Turkish embassy
Except the initial charge was for “harassing the institution of Islam” - ie blasphemy
It was only when everyone went mental that they reluctantly changed the wording of the charge. The actual charge is the same and now he’s been convicted
So we have a new blasphemy law. We can all see it. This time it is impossible to deny
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
The second part was about reckless car-drivers. Anyway I'm glad you no longer drive, you're supposed to be able to stop in the distance you can see. The motorcyclist was lucky that he hit a cyclist and not something more solid than him, if he'd come round the corner and hit a car / tractor / horse / pedestrian (five rucksack toting kids on a DoE weekend) no one would blame the other party. You're just typically anti-cyclist. The cyclist was just very lucky with how the collision occurred wrt the consequences, no head contact with the motorcyclist, road or other hard object.
We're 'arguing' about something where we basically agree! Yes, agree about the stopping distance. And I'm not anti-cyclist; I've done quite a lot of cycling as I mentioned elsewhere.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Are you letting Just Stop Oil out too?
If someone from Just Stop Oil had been imprisoned for tweeting “people can cause traffic chaos, disrupt cities, stop people taking their kids to hospital and the rest of it for all I care” that would be terrible, but they actually did those things. Even then their sentences seem a bit much
From my understanding the reason they were jailed for those sentences were more because they had previously on multiple occasions been to court for the same thing and bound over not to do it and repeatedly breached the orders and after the first few times it was ok jail time
Most of them were already on suspended sentences as well.
They are fortunate they were not jailed previously given the level of repeat offending.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Are you letting Just Stop Oil out too?
If someone from Just Stop Oil had been imprisoned for tweeting “people can cause traffic chaos, disrupt cities, stop people taking their kids to hospital and the rest of it for all I care” that would be terrible, but they actually did those things. Even then their sentences seem a bit much
If I said "I hate people from Upper Whoop Whoop, they are dreadful people and I think they should be lynched by a baying mob", and nutters went out to do the lynching, do you not think for the safety of the people of Upper Whoop Whoop I should be punished, particularly if I pleaded guilty to the charges. To prevent other people thinking about setting out to lynch the people of Upper Whoop Whoop I would expect to be given an additionally lengthy preventative sentence.
Nigel's embrace of socialism seems to be having an effect. The question now is: will this become widely realized amongst the British Right and what will they do about it if it does? The British Right might soon have to turn on its most cherished son.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
Nah, the liability for that lies entirely with the motorcyclist, even in your hypothetical scenario. Could have been a cow, a horse rider, a tractor, whatever. You've got to leave yourself time to react and stop on those country roads.
True, but our friend was describing the motor-cyclist as 'treating that country road like a race-track'. But the point you two make is a fair one.
He was, he told the attending policeman that it was a couple of other corners on the road where he'd normally lose control. So the clear implication is that he was regularly riding at the limit of his ability on that road.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
How many cyclists go through red lights?
How many drivers go into the ASL box?
Not as many as cyclists who go through red lights. ASL boxes are usually well respected and I understand, if there is backed up traffic, why people do get stuck there.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
Lock them all up. I wouldn't throw soup on a valuable painting , climb the Dartford Bridge or make inflammatory racist tweets. But you have to see Connolly's tweet caused riotous behaviour which if it hadn't been contained could have led to a Holiday Inn full of people set on fire. They were setting fire to wheelie bins Infront of fire doors. Why don't you people see that it was more than a "little bit of fun".
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
So what? If the contention is the criminal justice system is flawed, why are Letby's lawyers exempt from that?
If the contention is that lawyers (and doctors) do not understand statistics and probability, why are Letby's lawyers exceptions?
If the medical expert panel was convened as a reaction to the court decision, how could Letby's lawyers possibly have called its evidence?
However, for most people, I suspect the takeaway is this is just another example of broken Britain.
Either a killer nurse was allowed to murder babies for years with no-one noticing, or there is abundant evidence of a miscarriage of justice but apparently it cannot be fixed.
The fact that (sadly) babies die in these wards through no fault of anyone means that spotting a potential murder is a bit harder than most murders (dead body in the street/living room/office). Then you end up with statistics being involved. So a bit like the replication crisis in certain parts of bio science, you have things that cannot be replicated.
In the Letby case it was asserted by some that "they looked at all the babies whose deaths were suspicious and who was on shift, and the only person on shift for all of them was Letby". Except that's not how the chart was compiled. There was significant back and forth and babies deaths were added and removed and then the chart was found to show just Letby.
There is a lot to unpick. Its undoubtedly complex. And the truth is as you say either a serial killer killed a stack of tiny babies or shit care did and someone innocent is currently in a living hell.
A funny knock-on effect of Ukraine's drone attacks on Russia yesterday: Now there's huge queues of trucks backed up across Russia, as authorities scramble to search their cargo for the possibility of more hidden drones.
Next step: a few Ukrainian remote control bombs in trucks would cause huge collateral damage to those queues - and make transport across the breadth of Russia damned near impossible.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
Nah, the liability for that lies entirely with the motorcyclist, even in your hypothetical scenario. Could have been a cow, a horse rider, a tractor, whatever. You've got to leave yourself time to react and stop on those country roads.
True, but our friend was describing the motor-cyclist as 'treating that country road like a race-track'. But the point you two make is a fair one.
He was, he told the attending policeman that it was a couple of other corners on the road where he'd normally lose control. So the clear implication is that he was regularly riding at the limit of his ability on that road.
New evidence; does indeed suggest the motor-cyclist was pushing the envelope. Silly whatsit.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
A funny knock-on effect of Ukraine's drone attacks on Russia yesterday: Now there's huge queues of trucks backed up across Russia, as authorities scramble to search their cargo for the possibility of more hidden drones.
Next step: a few Ukrainian remote control bombs in trucks would cause huge collateral damage to those queues - and make transport across the breadth of Russia damned near impossible.
Killing civilians in traffic queues may be a step too far.
But perhaps the next Ukrainian attack should be to wipe out Russia's airliners on the ground. This is the age of the train!
A funny knock-on effect of Ukraine's drone attacks on Russia yesterday: Now there's huge queues of trucks backed up across Russia, as authorities scramble to search their cargo for the possibility of more hidden drones.
Next step: a few Ukrainian remote control bombs in trucks would cause huge collateral damage to those queues - and make transport across the breadth of Russia damned near impossible.
That's a suicide mission for those drivers though
I do think the Crimea bridge might be next
I'm rather surprised no-one's yet had another go. Or at least a successful one.
The two WH officials said the president was not currently considering re-imposing tariffs of 145% on China if Xi continues to not live up to the commitments struck in Geneva last month
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
Lock them all up. I wouldn't throw soup on a valuable painting , climb the Dartford Bridge or make inflammatory racist tweets. But you have to see Connolly's tweet caused riotous behaviour which if it hadn't been contained could have led to a Holiday Inn full of people set on fire. They were setting fire to wheelie bins Infront of fire doors. Why don't you people see that it was more than a "little bit of fun".
A tweet which hardly anyone read and which was up for 3 hours caused a meltdown ?
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
I also love Europe, and agree that we must defend it. But that doesn't necessarily mean I want to BE Europe. It is so very foreign, for one thing. The "I like ito so much I want to own it" tendency is very strange. Like someone buying a holiday home in France when it would be far more convenient just to rent somewhere two weeks a year.
Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
So what? If the contention is the criminal justice system is flawed, why are Letby's lawyers exempt from that?
If the contention is that lawyers (and doctors) do not understand statistics and probability, why are Letby's lawyers exceptions?
If the medical expert panel was convened as a reaction to the court decision, how could Letby's lawyers possibly have called its evidence?
However, for most people, I suspect the takeaway is this is just another example of broken Britain.
Either a killer nurse was allowed to murder babies for years with no-one noticing, or there is abundant evidence of a miscarriage of justice but apparently it cannot be fixed.
The fact that (sadly) babies die in these wards through no fault of anyone means that spotting a potential murder is a bit harder than most murders (dead body in the street/living room/office). Then you end up with statistics being involved. So a bit like the replication crisis in certain parts of bio science, you have things that cannot be replicated.
In the Letby case it was asserted by some that "they looked at all the babies whose deaths were suspicious and who was on shift, and the only person on shift for all of them was Letby". Except that's not how the chart was compiled. There was significant back and forth and babies deaths were added and removed and then the chart was found to show just Letby.
There is a lot to unpick. Its undoubtedly complex. And the truth is as you say either a serial killer killed a stack of tiny babies or shit care did and someone innocent is currently in a living hell.
Let us also not forget that it is much easier, institutionally, for the NHS for there to be a "bad actor" rather than a rotten system. Which latter there undoubtedly is.
My aunt had a chest infection a few weeks ago, so dialled 111 and was sent to hospital. She died on Friday.
She def had several co-morbidities but the cause of death on the certificate was "hospital-acquired pneumonia".
I'm sure eg @Foxy can tell me whether this is just a catch all phrase for "would have died anyway".
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
But after 90 days you now have to come home to your bedsit above a Turkish barbers in Cricklewood Broadway.
You owned Europe. You could stay in France or Italy or Spain at your leisure, forever if you so wished.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
But after 90 days you now have to come home to your bedsit above a Turkish barbers in Cricklewood Broadway.
You owned Europe. You could stay in France or Italy or Spain at your leisure, forever if you so wished.
I didn’t want to be governed forever by people I can never vote out of power
But now that Europe is coming round to my way of thinking - eg get rid of the ECHR - essentially destroying the Blob at a European level - yes. It is more seductive
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
Harder for an incompetent cyclist to cause a fatality than a car driver, for obvious reasons...
But there is certainly a problem with cycling proficiency in this country. Red light running is the big one, but I see cyclists disobeying speed limits and doing idiotic stuff. Your "hysterical anti-cycling" crack is also completely indicative of the unpleasant attitude surrounding this issue - cyclists refusing to believe there is any problem whatsoever, sneering at anyone who pushes for a reasonable solution.
That will inevitably result in government regulation of cycling at some point, and given the wrecking ball they hit motorcycling with I suggest that's an outcome most cyclist should be straining to avoid.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Are you letting Just Stop Oil out too?
If someone from Just Stop Oil had been imprisoned for tweeting “people can cause traffic chaos, disrupt cities, stop people taking their kids to hospital and the rest of it for all I care” that would be terrible, but they actually did those things. Even then their sentences seem a bit much
If I said "I hate people from Upper Whoop Whoop, they are dreadful people and I think they should be lynched by a baying mob", and nutters went out to do the lynching, do you not think for the safety of the people of Upper Whoop Whoop I should be punished, particularly if I pleaded guilty to the charges. To prevent other people thinking about setting out to lynch the people of Upper Whoop Whoop I would expect to be given an additionally lengthy preventative sentence.
You know what, if a load of Muslims were rioting, and an inconsequential female Muslim tweeted “I hope they burn down all the churches while the congregation are inside” I don’t think I’d want her locked up for 2 1/2 years. Can’t say I’m 100% but I don’t think I would
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
That’s a blasphemy law enforced by the fact that Islam has many violent adherents
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
Have the people who physically attacked him been prosecuted ?
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
How many cyclists go through red lights?
How many drivers go into the ASL box?
Not as many as cyclists who go through red lights. ASL boxes are usually well respected and I understand, if there is backed up traffic, why people do get stuck there.
I reckon it's roughly the same proportion, and almost guaranteed if said driver has just overtaken you. Cyclists do, occasionally, get caught and fined for red light offences, but even that is out of proportion for the number of people they kill or serious injure.
In fact, looking at the ped/cycle collisions in Edinburgh, most of the serious ones seem to happen at uncontrolled junctions, which is rather interesting. I shall dig into that.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
What would someone have to say to you for you to justify (to yourself, and to the courts) smacking him in the head.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
But after 90 days you now have to come home to your bedsit above a Turkish barbers in Cricklewood Broadway.
You owned Europe. You could stay in France or Italy or Spain at your leisure, forever if you so wished.
I didn’t want to be governed forever by people I can never vote out of power
But now that Europe is coming round to my way of thinking - eg get rid of the ECHR - essentially destroying the Blob at a European level - yes. It is more seductive
A lot of the things that people object to about 'Europe' originate in meddling from the British legal establishement. "The call is coming from inside the house," as the meme has it.
It would be poetic justice if reintegration with Europe became a means of putting our own judges and lawyers back in their box.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
You’re so stupid you can’t see how this explodes your own argument
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
But after 90 days you now have to come home to your bedsit above a Turkish barbers in Cricklewood Broadway.
You owned Europe. You could stay in France or Italy or Spain at your leisure, forever if you so wished.
"Owned" is so gross. You think the average Frenchman thought we "owned" his country like he did?
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
So telling pacifists to F off is fine. Saying that to violent thugs gets you locked up.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
Have the people who physically attacked him been prosecuted ?
I would hope so, based on this: "...neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response.."
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I don't think Leon has voted to leave NATO, and the continent of Europe of which we are a part was still there when I looked this morning.
But he did vote to leave stuff like Euratom and Erasmus and he is itching to join Russia and Belarus and leave the Churchillian ECHR.
Erasmus doesn't require EU membership. It also involves North Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey.
But we chose to leave it anyway. Same with Euratom. We were in that club prior to joining the Common Market.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I don't think Leon has voted to leave NATO, and the continent of Europe of which we are a part was still there when I looked this morning.
But he did vote to leave stuff like Euratom and Erasmus and he is itching to join Russia and Belarus and leave the Churchillian ECHR.
Erasmus doesn't require EU membership. It also involves North Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey.
But we chose to leave it anyway. Same with Euratom. We were in that club prior to joining the Common Market.
There was a merger treaty so although they began with separate legal frameworks, 'the European Communities' became one single thing.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I didn’t know they were all going to swing hard right and vote to dissolve the ECHR did I? This new Europe is much more amenable to me
But after 90 days you now have to come home to your bedsit above a Turkish barbers in Cricklewood Broadway.
You owned Europe. You could stay in France or Italy or Spain at your leisure, forever if you so wished.
"Owned" is so gross. You think the average Frenchman thought we "owned" his country like he did?
I "owned" Paris and Rome. I could come and go as I wished in the same way a Frenchman or an Italian could. Freedom of Movement worked for me.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I don't think Leon has voted to leave NATO, and the continent of Europe of which we are a part was still there when I looked this morning.
But he did vote to leave stuff like Euratom and Erasmus and he is itching to join Russia and Belarus and leave the Churchillian ECHR.
Erasmus doesn't require EU membership. It also involves North Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey.
But we chose to leave it anyway. Same with Euratom. We were in that club prior to joining the Common Market.
That was all down to Johnson, a man who acts before he thinks and then gets upset when the consequences of his actions are pointed out to him.
Last week I was eating a kipper and egg bap under Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland
Now I’m on the Luxembourg-German border in Mullerthal staring at the 8th century sarcophagus of St Willibrord, under the basilica which carries his name, who came from wild Northumberland to civilise and Christianise the local pagans
ALSO every June they have a hopping festival here. Where everyone hops from Germany into Luxembourg. Dates back to heathen times
I love Europe. We must defend her
Then why did you vote to leave? Remember you used to own Germany and Luxembourg along with another 25 countries and you gave it all up.
I don't think Leon has voted to leave NATO, and the continent of Europe of which we are a part was still there when I looked this morning.
But he did vote to leave stuff like Euratom and Erasmus and he is itching to join Russia and Belarus and leave the Churchillian ECHR.
Erasmus doesn't require EU membership. It also involves North Macedonia, Serbia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey.
But we chose to leave it anyway. Same with Euratom. We were in that club prior to joining the Common Market.
Yes and no. Later, after we joined, the EU and Euratom became intertwined legally, and we could not leave the EU without leaving Euratom.
"Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”."
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
You’re so stupid you can’t see how this explodes your own argument
He went to provoke a response - and managed to trigger the response he wanted to provoke.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Are you letting Just Stop Oil out too?
If someone from Just Stop Oil had been imprisoned for tweeting “people can cause traffic chaos, disrupt cities, stop people taking their kids to hospital and the rest of it for all I care” that would be terrible, but they actually did those things. Even then their sentences seem a bit much
If I said "I hate people from Upper Whoop Whoop, they are dreadful people and I think they should be lynched by a baying mob", and nutters went out to do the lynching, do you not think for the safety of the people of Upper Whoop Whoop I should be punished, particularly if I pleaded guilty to the charges. To prevent other people thinking about setting out to lynch the people of Upper Whoop Whoop I would expect to be given an additionally lengthy preventative sentence.
You know what, if a load of Muslims were rioting, and an inconsequential female Muslim tweeted “I hope they burn down all the churches while the congregation are inside” I don’t think I’d want her locked up for 2 1/2 years. Can’t say I’m 100% but I don’t think I would
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
How many cyclists go through red lights?
How many drivers go into the ASL box?
Not as many as cyclists who go through red lights. ASL boxes are usually well respected and I understand, if there is backed up traffic, why people do get stuck there.
I reckon it's roughly the same proportion, and almost guaranteed if said driver has just overtaken you. Cyclists do, occasionally, get caught and fined for red light offences, but even that is out of proportion for the number of people they kill or serious injure.
In fact, looking at the ped/cycle collisions in Edinburgh, most of the serious ones seem to happen at uncontrolled junctions, which is rather interesting. I shall dig into that.
As PB will know well, because the entire posting community follows my activities closely, I cycle *a lot* in London. Well, let's think, not as in Land's End to John O'Groats a lot, but say 40-50 miles a week. Through central London.
I can tell you that the ASL boxes are largely left clear unless there is backed up traffic (and if cars are in it I position myself directly in front of them) while I would say 50-70% of cyclists routinely go through red lights unless there is likelihood of death (crossing Parliament Square is one such example) or a police car in plain view (and even that doesn't deter people all that much).
I am stop at red lights and it is common for several cyclists to fly past me at just about every red light.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The trouble with the cultural thing is that unfortunately it's at least somewhat true.
I was involved in a saga with a Nigerian chap in his 40s plus his wife and teenage son who turned up during the Boriswave to work in a local care home. Several of us at church tried to help and support them in various ways.
He asked me about buying a car - I showed him some listings on autotrader which might possibly have fitted his needs and budget, just to give him an idea of what he might get for his money. Next thing I know he's bought one of the ones I'd shown him - blind. 18 year old Skoda Octavia diesel estate. Rather to my surprise, it was actually quite a solid tidy car - clearly my bangernomics instincts weren't too bad.
That was the easy bit. Despite various of us impressing on him the need for tax and insurance, and it becoming apparent that his Nigerian license wasn't valid (he'd been in the UK too long) he's been cheerfully driving round in it for six months now without any of these. All good until he hits someone, or the plod take an interest and he gets his collar felt.
This isn't a racist observation, but he's got a cultural problem - he doesn't understand what is and isn't acceptable in our culture. Being blunt, I think he thinks that if he gets stopped by the old flatfoot he'll be able to offer them £50in cash to make them go away.
I don't bear him any malice, but it's blindingly obvious that importing lots of people like him who don't get uk culture is just creating problems. One quality run in with law and we'll be spending more on his prosecution than he's paid in tax in ten years.
If he kills someone you will feel pretty shitty for not daubing him in. If he was running about with guns or machetes I am sure you would. Clown at best will wreck some poor sods car and cost him a fortune or at worst kill people.
Going well for Farage in Aberdeen where he lambasted Anas Sarwar for a speech he gave at Holyrood saying there were too many white people. Actually Hamza Yousaf gave the speech, but one Muslim party leader in a jumped up talking shop in the northern territories is like another, so who cares? He also misrepresented the speech, but again who cares?
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
Lock them all up. I wouldn't throw soup on a valuable painting , climb the Dartford Bridge or make inflammatory racist tweets. But you have to see Connolly's tweet caused riotous behaviour which if it hadn't been contained could have led to a Holiday Inn full of people set on fire. They were setting fire to wheelie bins Infront of fire doors. Why don't you people see that it was more than a "little bit of fun".
A tweet which hardly anyone read and which was up for 3 hours caused a meltdown ?
ROFL
Were you rolling on the floor laughing when the wheelie bins were rammed against the fire doors and set on fire?
A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
There's plenty of blame to go round. Yes, many motorcyclists do go recklessly fast but cyclists are very often an utter menace. There's a pervasive mindset among too many cyclists that rules are for other people.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
What % of drivers and motorcyclists speed? I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all. Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
How many cyclists go through red lights?
You mean the ones on Lime bikes in London? Twice in London in the past few weeks. Twice nearly taken out (plus others) from these idiots. As a cyclist am probably more aware of the damage that can be done on impact. So b***dy selfish.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
Lock them all up. I wouldn't throw soup on a valuable painting , climb the Dartford Bridge or make inflammatory racist tweets. But you have to see Connolly's tweet caused riotous behaviour which if it hadn't been contained could have led to a Holiday Inn full of people set on fire. They were setting fire to wheelie bins Infront of fire doors. Why don't you people see that it was more than a "little bit of fun".
WTF is this ‘you people’ crap.
I have no problem with Connolly being imprisoned for her crime, to which she pleaded guilty, and she is not a political prisoner, as I was discussing with Topping, Eek and others today. Making pretty much the same points as you.
The sentence may be excessive but it is in line with the guidelines.
Comments
UK public order law says that you are culpable if, in speech and other expressive acts, you could "provoke" others into violence. We have written a veto on speech into law that is exclusively available to groups willing to be violent.
https://x.com/s8mb/status/1929519058556187116
It's a charter which encourages the extremists in any given group to resort to violence in order to set limits on free speech for everyone else.
Clearly policing speech designed to encourage violence is not a simple problem, but it seems that we have got the balance wrong here,
I have no idea why the legal team did not have their own experts to assert that the deaths were natural, but you would imagine it was part of a strategy. But what?
HMF are currently around 130k strong (fewer than the army during Op Banner days).
SKS says he wants "pay rises and a stronger reserve" (the reserve is currently 40k-odd).
And paying people more and doing something to the reserve is going to put us on a war fighting footing.
I find that an interesting approach. If they want HMF to be war fighting ready then they are going to have to increase significantly the number of people in uniform as their day job plus provide sufficient equipment for as many battle groups the govt thinks is required for whatever it is we want to do. Which, of course, we still aren't really sure but that's another issue.
I don't see this as being part of the new and exciting road map.
Reeves does of course get the blame as the press that exists only looks at now and ignores even recent history
Rashid's problem (apart from confidence/lack of support) was the physical limitations of his shoulder, which made bowling long spells problematic.
We need higher standards on the road all round.
We've all done it, I expect, but the fact remains the same. I modified my driving after an argument with a deer in the dark on back roads that I knew well - I knew the corner and knew (I thought) the speed at which it could be taken safely. I ended up showered with bits of windscreen and a couple of cuts, was lucky really - the deer less so. A few seconds later another car came round the corner behind me, as I was exiting the vehicle, fortunately taking it at a more appropriate speed and came to a stop - just - without also smacking into my car or me.
Anyway I'm glad you no longer drive, you're supposed to be able to stop in the distance you can see.
The motorcyclist was lucky that he hit a cyclist and not something more solid than him, if he'd come round the corner and hit a car / tractor / horse / pedestrian (five rucksack toting kids on a DoE weekend) no one would blame the other party. You're just typically anti-cyclist.
The cyclist was just very lucky with how the collision occurred wrt the consequences, no head contact with the motorcyclist, road or other hard object.
June will be a better comparison with deliveries of the new car now properly under way.
In my ideal world, such drivers would have been slapped with huge fines, bans and confiscations before they ever got to that stage.
Some of the ideas in the review aren't stupid, but it's not exactly a coherent whole.
For sure it needs updating given it was made many many moons ago in a different world and we shoudl not be a dumping ground for any Tom , Dick or Harry that arrives in the country. You woudl not accept any old stranger turning up at your front door and saying I am going to live here and you will feed and clothe me. It is about as sane as saying we should be using horses and carts because we did 100 years ago.
So I was stuck behind a lorry from Loch Laggan to Dalwhinnie. So be it.
That one third of them decided Britain was no longer a place they wanted to be in should tell us something about Brexit.
My ideal would be that the UK was such an attractive place in ways that benefit everyone - low crime rate, cohesive society, excellent public services, high quality education, beautifully maintained environment etc - that non Doms would be happy to pay loads of taxes to stay here.
There is no such thing as a strategy of seeking to achieve a not guilty verdict by not using expert evidence which would help bring this about. They decided not to call it twice. The lawyers are not dim, but they are not allowed to comment unless Letby allows them to.
This is why the absence of an explanation is central to not being able to comprehend the case. Until there is a better explanation, conclude for now that the evidence they had would have done harm or done no good.
But the point you two make is a fair one.
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/02/man-burned-koran-guilty-racially-aggravated-public-order/
https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2024/june/shocking-levels-of-uninsured-vehicle-on-uk-roads/
Reeves has been a poor chancellor but, like other ministers, she is also having to deal with the legacy of the total clusterfuck of the last govt.
If the contention is that lawyers (and doctors) do not understand statistics and probability, why are Letby's lawyers exceptions?
If the medical expert panel was convened as a reaction to the court decision, how could Letby's lawyers possibly have called its evidence?
However, for most people, I suspect the takeaway is this is just another example of broken Britain.
Either a killer nurse was allowed to murder babies for years with no-one noticing, or there is abundant evidence of a miscarriage of justice but apparently it cannot be fixed.
This is a summary if you're interested in the more obscure parts of our over-complicated and loophole-ridden tax code.
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmgsites/uk/pdf/2016/08/Proforma-non-dom-changes-2016.pdf
The overall effect was to reduce significantly the incentive to becoming a non-dom.
The main point of the changes to non-dom status over the last decade is to show that, however stupid the last government was, the current government somehow manages to take it several stages further.
I don't think they are much of a deterrent. People who carelessly pull out of a junction and kill someone aren't taking the possibility of a prison sentence into account when failing to look properly. For me, the behaviour that leads to mistakes needs to be caught much earlier, and punished with bans and fines. Perhaps random re-testing too.
In contrast, driving at 70mph past a primary school is a conscious decision, and should be punished accordingly. I guess the exact location of the line differs by person.
1) Lawyers are not immune from criticism
2) I am not aware that either side in the trial relied on statistical probabilities in the sense of expert evidence
3) Trials are what they are. Obviously Letby's lawyers obtained expert evidence. As it was not used we cannot know what they would have said, unless Letby gives permission. SFAICS she hasn't
4) The CCRC and Court of Appeal exist to sort miscarriages of justice. Neither is perfect.
With your more polemical points I have some sympathy.
Yes or no? I’m swaying towards Yes. Dunno why. Just got a weird feeling that Yes is the way to go. Or no?
They say you should always say Yes. But what if I get some kind of weird caviar poisoning? Or I fall out of the personal hot air balloon with butler as it floats over the Golden Pavilion?
Hmm
I'd estimate 100% at some point, there are limits starting at 20 after all.
Travel too fast for the road conditions? Probably a lower %, but not much.
There are ~1600 fatalities on the road annually, on average < 3 will be due to a cyclist. Definitely true that there is poor cycling but it doesn't tend to endanger others, as shown by the statistics rather than the hysterical anti-cycling comments by people who in all probability shouldn't hold a driving licence.
A funny knock-on effect of Ukraine's drone attacks on Russia yesterday: Now there's huge queues of trucks backed up across Russia, as authorities scramble to search their cargo for the possibility of more hidden drones.
https://bsky.app/profile/justinling.ca/post/3lqmsd2q5wc2i
"@ReformUKScot
We are delighted to welcome former Scottish Labour Councillor
@JamieMcGuire__"
https://x.com/ReformUKScot/status/1929528255561794031
Never seen that before - I jest
It was only when everyone went mental that they reluctantly changed the wording of the charge. The actual charge is the same and now he’s been convicted
So we have a new blasphemy law. We can all see it. This time it is impossible to deny
Fantastic. Well done everyone
They are fortunate they were not jailed previously given the level of repeat offending.
In the Letby case it was asserted by some that "they looked at all the babies whose deaths were suspicious and who was on shift, and the only person on shift for all of them was Letby". Except that's not how the chart was compiled. There was significant back and forth and babies deaths were added and removed and then the chart was found to show just Letby.
There is a lot to unpick. Its undoubtedly complex. And the truth is as you say either a serial killer killed a stack of tiny babies or shit care did and someone innocent is currently in a living hell.
I do think the Crimea bridge might be next
But perhaps the next Ukrainian attack should be to wipe out Russia's airliners on the ground. This is the age of the train!
The two WH officials said the president was not currently considering re-imposing tariffs of 145% on China if Xi continues to not live up to the commitments struck in Geneva last month
#TACO
ROFL
The "I like ito so much I want to own it" tendency is very strange. Like someone buying a holiday home in France when it would be far more convenient just to rent somewhere two weeks a year.
My aunt had a chest infection a few weeks ago, so dialled 111 and was sent to hospital. She died on Friday.
She def had several co-morbidities but the cause of death on the certificate was "hospital-acquired pneumonia".
I'm sure eg @Foxy can tell me whether this is just a catch all phrase for "would have died anyway".
You owned Europe. You could stay in France or Italy or Spain at your leisure, forever if you so wished.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Rex-v-Hamit-Coskun.pdf
[18] In this case the prosecution has to make me sure that the defendant was acting in a
disorderly way. Making criticism of Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly.
Burning a religious book although offensive to some is not necessarily disorderly. In this
case the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy a place where he must
have known there would be Muslims. The burning of the Quran was carried out in a very
visible way, it being held up and him saying the “Quran is burning”, that is by its nature
provocative. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the
conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for
him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam. His conduct was not violent or
threatening but it was disorderly. He was repeatedly swearing both to the world in general
and to the man who confronted him particularly. That the conduct was disorderly is no
better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being
assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the
nature of their response].
So nope - but verbally attacking people to the point they physically attack you may well be.
But now that Europe is coming round to my way of thinking - eg get rid of the ECHR - essentially destroying the Blob at a European level - yes. It is more seductive
But there is certainly a problem with cycling proficiency in this country. Red light running is the big one, but I see cyclists disobeying speed limits and doing idiotic stuff. Your "hysterical anti-cycling" crack is also completely indicative of the unpleasant attitude surrounding this issue - cyclists refusing to believe there is any problem whatsoever, sneering at anyone who pushes for a reasonable solution.
That will inevitably result in government regulation of cycling at some point, and given the wrecking ball they hit motorcycling with I suggest that's an outcome most cyclist should be straining to avoid.
In fact, looking at the ped/cycle collisions in Edinburgh, most of the serious ones seem to happen at uncontrolled junctions, which is rather interesting. I shall dig into that.
It would be poetic justice if reintegration with Europe became a means of putting our own judges and lawyers back in their box.
"...neither of whom appear to have any justification for the
nature of their response.."
Anyone ?
NEW THREAD
I can tell you that the ASL boxes are largely left clear unless there is backed up traffic (and if cars are in it I position myself directly in front of them) while I would say 50-70% of cyclists routinely go through red lights unless there is likelihood of death (crossing Parliament Square is one such example) or a police car in plain view (and even that doesn't deter people all that much).
I am stop at red lights and it is common for several cyclists to fly past me at just about every red light.
https://bsky.app/profile/adambienkov.bsky.social/post/3lqmmujrfwc2v
I have no problem with Connolly being imprisoned for her crime, to which she pleaded guilty, and she is not a political prisoner, as I was discussing with Topping, Eek and others today. Making pretty much the same points as you.
The sentence may be excessive but it is in line with the guidelines.