Someone on X has just pointed out that the jury in the Jones case retired for 30 minutes
Thirty fecking minutes??? It took them just half an hour to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, and decide that as he was "dyslexic" as a child he must be innocent
THIRTY. MINUTES.
That's a jury intending to acquit, no matter what
Ever been a juror? It was probably Tuesday of week 2.. "Who needs to get back to work because it's costing them £100s/day?" "How many agree that this was a total waste of our time?" 3? 4? OK, Not Guilty then, nice to meet you all.
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
At best she was badly advised, and pleaded guilty to a serious offence at a time of heightened tensions.
If she’d been up in front of a jury a year or more later, her case might have had a different outcome.
I’ve commented in the past - that I don’t think anyone grasped how the sentencing would play out so what looked liked she would end up with a suspended sentence become something different as the aggravating circumstances (rioting) seriously increased the severity of the crime.
So I can see why a quick guilt admission was recommended and how everyone ended up in this mess
Maybe.
But that doesnt explain why she's still in prison.
I thought you were good at maths - 31 months *.4 is a minimum of 12 months before release and I don’t know why when she was jailed or placed on remand
She still is in prison.
Theres nothing stopping the courts to send her home and put a tag on her to restrict her movements. And hasnt been sice she was sentenced.
The courts have screwed up on the sentencing and then doubled down on it.
No they haven’t - sentences are tied to strict guidelines and the two tier justice you seem to want is because the person in jail is female and pretty (look g at both Lucy Connelly and Lucy Letby).
Lets shoot this Fox - Lucy Letby is not pretty. At best a 5/10.
Quite
Nor is Lucy Connolly. She's a 4
Shamima Begum on the other hand. Ding dong!
Welcome to PB. Welcome to the 1970s. Ding dong!
If a PB-er is going to make the claim that other PB-ers are sympathetic to "criminals" because they are pretty, then we are surely allowed to point out that, in fact, they are not pretty
You're right about Shamima Begum., however One of my best friends has met her several times (he works in security and intel). He said "oh my god, you totally would"
Lucy Connolly was bullied into pleading guilty by a police force and prosecution service determined to make examples. Weirdly, they didn’t do that to Ricky Jones
I suspect Connolly was told she would get a very minor punishment if she pleaded guilty.
It would be interesting to know who told her that, if it's true.
I would guess plod regularly do similar.
Hasn't it been regularly mentioned that plod encourage people to accept cautions without mentioning that cautions count as a criminal record ?
Didn’t that happen recently with the guy who was carrying a trowel and other garden tools home.
If people’s starting point in life is ACAB and work back based on personal experience they won’t be badly served
General rule is to never accept a police caution as it can be career-ending (teachers etc) or life-limiting (DBS check for helping out with your kid's sports team)
But if everybody did that there'd be lots more CJS resource absorbed dealing with minor offences.
Or it would be dropped because there isn't a case or it's not in the public interest, they're offering you a caution because it's an easy way of closing the paperwork with a result for them and the offence, if any, is minor.
Ok but if there's nothing between nothing and a prosecution, and we don't prosecute minor offences, aren't we then effectively saying there is no such thing as a minor offence? They cease to exist.
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
At best she was badly advised, and pleaded guilty to a serious offence at a time of heightened tensions.
If she’d been up in front of a jury a year or more later, her case might have had a different outcome.
I’ve commented in the past - that I don’t think anyone grasped how the sentencing would play out so what looked liked she would end up with a suspended sentence become something different as the aggravating circumstances (rioting) seriously increased the severity of the crime.
So I can see why a quick guilt admission was recommended and how everyone ended up in this mess
Maybe.
But that doesnt explain why she's still in prison.
I thought you were good at maths - 31 months *.4 is a minimum of 12 months before release and I don’t know why when she was jailed or placed on remand
She still is in prison.
Theres nothing stopping the courts to send her home and put a tag on her to restrict her movements. And hasnt been sice she was sentenced.
The courts have screwed up on the sentencing and then doubled down on it.
No they haven’t - sentences are tied to strict guidelines and the two tier justice you seem to want is because the person in jail is female and pretty (look g at both Lucy Connelly and Lucy Letby).
LOL the two tier justice works the other way. The resort to "because she's pretty" is from a 1970s sitcom.
The system have made her a martyr of sorts - newspaper deals, TV interviews etc. beckon when she leaves. Whereas a suspended sentence would have meant nobody would have heard of her.
Again - defending guidelines implemented between 2010 and 2024 - made any sentencing leeway impossible .
I don’t know how many times I’m going go have to repeat the same point until you grasp it
There's nothing to grasp. The Law as it is structured can be arbitrary and guidelines are guidelines. The System has screwed up. The old quote " the law is an ass" is a constant.
An ignorant violence-inciting racist loudmouth jailed for slightly too long (if indeed she has been) is hardly the most egregious example of "The System" screwing up.
I note that yesterday this ignorant violent loudmouth was jailed.
The sentence in this case seems far too short. I hope it gets reviewed.
I disagree
This guy sounds like a monstrous tw@t, but all he did was make verbal threats. They were hideous, so he deserves jail time, but he didn't actually do any violence (as I understand it)
We are far too swift to jail people for mere words (hello Lucy Connolly), whereas actual violence - rape, assault, violent theft - is often treated with leniency. It's all wrong and it should change
Years back, there was a postcode war stabbing near Oxford Street.
Two of the attackers (teenagers) held the victim down while he was stabbed. Instead of charging them with murder, they were charged with a form of assault and got 12 months each. With time off for good behaviour, time on remand etc, it was commented that they would be, literally, out in time for Christmas.
Let's depoliticise the judiciary by sacking judges I don't like ... isn't exactly the most persuasive argument.
Stark, raving, tonto. The lot of them.
Some of it is being triggered daily by not being in government, but it can't just be that.
Maybe it's the heat.
It's mainly just Trump and a complete lack of imagination. The British Right has seen what unimpeded political success looks like over the pond (something they don't feel they've enjoyed since the days of Thatcher) and concluded that's the only way to go. It's a shame really - I remember the days when it was the British who led while others followed. And to be following Trump of all people.
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
At best she was badly advised, and pleaded guilty to a serious offence at a time of heightened tensions.
If she’d been up in front of a jury a year or more later, her case might have had a different outcome.
I’ve commented in the past - that I don’t think anyone grasped how the sentencing would play out so what looked liked she would end up with a suspended sentence become something different as the aggravating circumstances (rioting) seriously increased the severity of the crime.
So I can see why a quick guilt admission was recommended and how everyone ended up in this mess
Maybe.
But that doesnt explain why she's still in prison.
I thought you were good at maths - 31 months *.4 is a minimum of 12 months before release and I don’t know why when she was jailed or placed on remand
She still is in prison.
Theres nothing stopping the courts to send her home and put a tag on her to restrict her movements. And hasnt been sice she was sentenced.
The courts have screwed up on the sentencing and then doubled down on it.
No they haven’t - sentences are tied to strict guidelines and the two tier justice you seem to want is because the person in jail is female and pretty (look g at both Lucy Connelly and Lucy Letby).
LOL the two tier justice works the other way. The resort to "because she's pretty" is from a 1970s sitcom.
The system have made her a martyr of sorts - newspaper deals, TV interviews etc. beckon when she leaves. Whereas a suspended sentence would have meant nobody would have heard of her.
Again - defending guidelines implemented between 2010 and 2024 - made any sentencing leeway impossible .
I don’t know how many times I’m going go have to repeat the same point until you grasp it
There's nothing to grasp. The Law as it is structured can be arbitrary and guidelines are guidelines. The System has screwed up. The old quote " the law is an ass" is a constant.
An ignorant violence-inciting racist loudmouth jailed for slightly too long (if indeed she has been) is hardly the most egregious example of "The System" screwing up.
I note that yesterday this ignorant violent loudmouth was jailed.
The sentence in this case seems far too short. I hope it gets reviewed.
I disagree
This guy sounds like a monstrous tw@t, but all he did was make verbal threats. They were hideous, so he deserves jail time, but he didn't actually do any violence (as I understand it)
We are far too swift to jail people for mere words (hello Lucy Connolly), whereas actual violence - rape, assault, violent theft - is often treated with leniency. It's all wrong and it should change
Years back, there was a postcode war stabbing near Oxford Street.
Two of the attackers (teenagers) held the victim down while he was stabbed. Instead of charging them with murder, they were charged with a form of assault and got 12 months each. With time off for good behaviour, time on remand etc, it was commented that they would be, literally, out in time for Christmas.
It’s likely every Reform inclined viewer will vote for Thomas Skinner on Strictly. He is a big personality, quite charming and has strikingly blue eyes. 12/1 was it?
Apparently Chicken Kyiv was served as the Russian in flight meal. They are taking the piss. Time to give Trump his Nobel Peace Prize on the proviso he fucks off with immediate effect.
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
At best she was badly advised, and pleaded guilty to a serious offence at a time of heightened tensions.
If she’d been up in front of a jury a year or more later, her case might have had a different outcome.
I’ve commented in the past - that I don’t think anyone grasped how the sentencing would play out so what looked liked she would end up with a suspended sentence become something different as the aggravating circumstances (rioting) seriously increased the severity of the crime.
So I can see why a quick guilt admission was recommended and how everyone ended up in this mess
Maybe.
But that doesnt explain why she's still in prison.
I thought you were good at maths - 31 months *.4 is a minimum of 12 months before release and I don’t know why when she was jailed or placed on remand
She still is in prison.
Theres nothing stopping the courts to send her home and put a tag on her to restrict her movements. And hasnt been sice she was sentenced.
The courts have screwed up on the sentencing and then doubled down on it.
No they haven’t - sentences are tied to strict guidelines and the two tier justice you seem to want is because the person in jail is female and pretty (look g at both Lucy Connelly and Lucy Letby).
LOL the two tier justice works the other way. The resort to "because she's pretty" is from a 1970s sitcom.
The system have made her a martyr of sorts - newspaper deals, TV interviews etc. beckon when she leaves. Whereas a suspended sentence would have meant nobody would have heard of her.
Again - defending guidelines implemented between 2010 and 2024 - made any sentencing leeway impossible .
I don’t know how many times I’m going go have to repeat the same point until you grasp it
There's nothing to grasp. The Law as it is structured can be arbitrary and guidelines are guidelines. The System has screwed up. The old quote " the law is an ass" is a constant.
An ignorant violence-inciting racist loudmouth jailed for slightly too long (if indeed she has been) is hardly the most egregious example of "The System" screwing up.
I note that yesterday this ignorant violent loudmouth was jailed.
The sentence in this case seems far too short. I hope it gets reviewed.
I disagree
This guy sounds like a monstrous tw@t, but all he did was make verbal threats. They were hideous, so he deserves jail time, but he didn't actually do any violence (as I understand it)
We are far too swift to jail people for mere words (hello Lucy Connolly), whereas actual violence - rape, assault, violent theft - is often treated with leniency. It's all wrong and it should change
Years back, there was a postcode war stabbing near Oxford Street.
Two of the attackers (teenagers) held the victim down while he was stabbed. Instead of charging them with murder, they were charged with a form of assault and got 12 months each. With time off for good behaviour, time on remand etc, it was commented that they would be, literally, out in time for Christmas.
Which case are you talking about?
I was trying to find it the other day - got discussed on the Bystander Blog (Magistrate, sadly no longer with us).
Let's depoliticise the judiciary by sacking judges I don't like ... isn't exactly the most persuasive argument.
Stark, raving, tonto. The lot of them.
Some of it is being triggered daily by not being in government, but it can't just be that.
Maybe it's the heat.
It's mainly just Trump and a complete lack of imagination. The British Right has seen what unimpeded political success looks like over the pond (something they don't feel they've enjoyed since the days of Thatcher) and concluded that's the only way to go. It's a shame really - I remember the days when it was the British who led while others followed. And to be following Trump of all people.
The Trump effect is huge. Specifically his re-election. Just 1% or so of votes the other way in swing states last Nov and it'd be a quite different world now. A thought that provides succour and anguish at the same time.
Speaking of which, it's this performative nonsense of a summit today, isn't it. I won't be watching. It's a trivial act of defiance in the grand scheme of things but perhaps it will catch on and explode into a global grassroots "ignore Donald Trump" movement. Great oaks and all that.
Lucy Connolly was bullied into pleading guilty by a police force and prosecution service determined to make examples. Weirdly, they didn’t do that to Ricky Jones
Ricky Jones knew his rights and used them and has been rewarded.
Don’t talk to the Police and don’t co-operate with them. They are not your friends
This video is 13 years old, and still as true as ever.
I saw this ages ago. It is a brilliant lecture. I’d also never attend a voluntary interview. It’s a fishing expedition.
Hmm... What I would say is those that give a clear explanation to the police about what happened of the alleged rape at interview have, in my experience, a much higher prospect of being acquitted than those who exercise their right to silence. The interview will nearly always be played to the Jury and can be highly persuasive. It is not subject to cross examination and it frequently means that the accused does not have to give evidence but can still have their version of events before the jury. If I was ever falsely accused of such a thing I think I would speak up, based on my experience.
But you *are* a lawyer, a lawyer who works in criminal law and who knows exactly what to say or what not to say in any given interaction with the police.
The rest of the population can too often either incriminate themselves or omit a key detail that means we get found guilty.
That's fair but i am telling you about the outcomes of people who are not. With DNA etc it is very rarely in doubt that sex actually happened between the complainer and the accused. The critical question is consent. And on that front you want your position clear from day 1.
Doesn't always work, of course, some people are guilty after all. But of the last half dozen acquittals I have had in rape trials I can't think of one who didn't speak up.
I think that, were I to find myself in that unfortunate position, my approach would be to write a comprehensive statement with my lawyer, and pretty much read that to the police rather than answering their questions directly.
It’s likely every Reform inclined viewer will vote for Thomas Skinner on Strictly. He is a big personality, quite charming and has strikingly blue eyes. 12/1 was it?
Lucy Connolly was bullied into pleading guilty by a police force and prosecution service determined to make examples. Weirdly, they didn’t do that to Ricky Jones
I suspect Connolly was told she would get a very minor punishment if she pleaded guilty.
It would be interesting to know who told her that, if it's true.
I would guess plod regularly do similar.
Hasn't it been regularly mentioned that plod encourage people to accept cautions without mentioning that cautions count as a criminal record ?
Didn’t that happen recently with the guy who was carrying a trowel and other garden tools home.
If people’s starting point in life is ACAB and work back based on personal experience they won’t be badly served
General rule is to never accept a police caution as it can be career-ending (teachers etc) or life-limiting (DBS check for helping out with your kid's sports team)
But if everybody did that there'd be lots more CJS resource absorbed dealing with minor offences.
Or it would be dropped because there isn't a case or it's not in the public interest, they're offering you a caution because it's an easy way of closing the paperwork with a result for them and the offence, if any, is minor.
Ok but if there's nothing between nothing and a prosecution, and we don't prosecute minor offences, aren't we then effectively saying there is no such thing as a minor offence? They cease to exist.
Examples I know of are a) where no offence occurred (item was lost and an allegation of theft was made) Police offered a caution at random to one of the accused adults to make the accuser happy - luckily rejected as would have been career-ending. b) acrimonious row between divorcing couple, no physical violence but police called, caution accepted, career ending, other partner had to make a large financial settlement in the divorce due to the overall loss of income. Everyone's a loser.
I'm not a solicitor / police station rep though, so my experience is very limited
Is there any evidence that a caution has a deterrent effect vs "words of advice"/several hours in a police station?
If yesterday's Crown Court is any guide, juries have been doing some strange things since 1973 at least.
Called "The Night for Country Dancing" - it's quite sordid for 1970s British television and more daring than anything put on now.
We really have become new puritans, haven't we?
Juries have been a pain in the arse for Governments since forever. See ancient Athens and Rome for some comedies. Cicero murdered people under the form of law, because he was worried they would get off at trial.
Hence the repeated attempts to control them, abolish them etc.
If yesterday's Crown Court is any guide, juries have been doing some strange things since 1973 at least.
Called "The Night for Country Dancing" - it's quite sordid for 1970s British television and more daring than anything put on now.
We really have become new puritans, haven't we?
Juries have been a pain in the arse for Governments since forever. See ancient Athens and Rome for some comedies. Cicero murdered people under the form of law, because he was worried they would get off at trial.
Hence the repeated attempts to control them, abolish them etc.
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
At best she was badly advised, and pleaded guilty to a serious offence at a time of heightened tensions.
If she’d been up in front of a jury a year or more later, her case might have had a different outcome.
I’ve commented in the past - that I don’t think anyone grasped how the sentencing would play out so what looked liked she would end up with a suspended sentence become something different as the aggravating circumstances (rioting) seriously increased the severity of the crime.
So I can see why a quick guilt admission was recommended and how everyone ended up in this mess
Maybe.
But that doesnt explain why she's still in prison.
I thought you were good at maths - 31 months *.4 is a minimum of 12 months before release and I don’t know why when she was jailed or placed on remand
She still is in prison.
Theres nothing stopping the courts to send her home and put a tag on her to restrict her movements. And hasnt been sice she was sentenced.
The courts have screwed up on the sentencing and then doubled down on it.
No they haven’t - sentences are tied to strict guidelines and the two tier justice you seem to want is because the person in jail is female and pretty (look g at both Lucy Connelly and Lucy Letby).
LOL the two tier justice works the other way. The resort to "because she's pretty" is from a 1970s sitcom.
The system have made her a martyr of sorts - newspaper deals, TV interviews etc. beckon when she leaves. Whereas a suspended sentence would have meant nobody would have heard of her.
Again - defending guidelines implemented between 2010 and 2024 - made any sentencing leeway impossible .
I don’t know how many times I’m going go have to repeat the same point until you grasp it
There's nothing to grasp. The Law as it is structured can be arbitrary and guidelines are guidelines. The System has screwed up. The old quote " the law is an ass" is a constant.
An ignorant violence-inciting racist loudmouth jailed for slightly too long (if indeed she has been) is hardly the most egregious example of "The System" screwing up.
I note that yesterday this ignorant violent loudmouth was jailed.
The sentence in this case seems far too short. I hope it gets reviewed.
I disagree
This guy sounds like a monstrous tw@t, but all he did was make verbal threats. They were hideous, so he deserves jail time, but he didn't actually do any violence (as I understand it)
We are far too swift to jail people for mere words (hello Lucy Connolly), whereas actual violence - rape, assault, violent theft - is often treated with leniency. It's all wrong and it should change
Years back, there was a postcode war stabbing near Oxford Street.
Two of the attackers (teenagers) held the victim down while he was stabbed. Instead of charging them with murder, they were charged with a form of assault and got 12 months each. With time off for good behaviour, time on remand etc, it was commented that they would be, literally, out in time for Christmas.
Which case are you talking about?
I was trying to find it the other day - got discussed on the Bystander Blog (Magistrate, sadly no longer with us).
The main one that comes up on Google is the stabbing of Seydou Diarrassouba in 2012, in which the defendants were acquitted on grounds of self-defence. Is that the one you're thinking of? Or some other case?
Haven't you answered your own question? Seems with Jenrick on manoeuvres and Farage on the flank, Kemi is stuck between two combatants who after her job and her votes. Amazed if she lasts to the end of 2025 at this rate.
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
At best she was badly advised, and pleaded guilty to a serious offence at a time of heightened tensions.
If she’d been up in front of a jury a year or more later, her case might have had a different outcome.
I’ve commented in the past - that I don’t think anyone grasped how the sentencing would play out so what looked liked she would end up with a suspended sentence become something different as the aggravating circumstances (rioting) seriously increased the severity of the crime.
So I can see why a quick guilt admission was recommended and how everyone ended up in this mess
Maybe.
But that doesnt explain why she's still in prison.
I thought you were good at maths - 31 months *.4 is a minimum of 12 months before release and I don’t know why when she was jailed or placed on remand
She still is in prison.
Theres nothing stopping the courts to send her home and put a tag on her to restrict her movements. And hasnt been sice she was sentenced.
The courts have screwed up on the sentencing and then doubled down on it.
No they haven’t - sentences are tied to strict guidelines and the two tier justice you seem to want is because the person in jail is female and pretty (look g at both Lucy Connelly and Lucy Letby).
LOL the two tier justice works the other way. The resort to "because she's pretty" is from a 1970s sitcom.
The system have made her a martyr of sorts - newspaper deals, TV interviews etc. beckon when she leaves. Whereas a suspended sentence would have meant nobody would have heard of her.
Again - defending guidelines implemented between 2010 and 2024 - made any sentencing leeway impossible .
I don’t know how many times I’m going go have to repeat the same point until you grasp it
There's nothing to grasp. The Law as it is structured can be arbitrary and guidelines are guidelines. The System has screwed up. The old quote " the law is an ass" is a constant.
An ignorant violence-inciting racist loudmouth jailed for slightly too long (if indeed she has been) is hardly the most egregious example of "The System" screwing up.
I note that yesterday this ignorant violent loudmouth was jailed.
The sentence in this case seems far too short. I hope it gets reviewed.
I disagree
This guy sounds like a monstrous tw@t, but all he did was make verbal threats. They were hideous, so he deserves jail time, but he didn't actually do any violence (as I understand it)
We are far too swift to jail people for mere words (hello Lucy Connolly), whereas actual violence - rape, assault, violent theft - is often treated with leniency. It's all wrong and it should change
Years back, there was a postcode war stabbing near Oxford Street.
Two of the attackers (teenagers) held the victim down while he was stabbed. Instead of charging them with murder, they were charged with a form of assault and got 12 months each. With time off for good behaviour, time on remand etc, it was commented that they would be, literally, out in time for Christmas.
Which case are you talking about?
I was trying to find it the other day - got discussed on the Bystander Blog (Magistrate, sadly no longer with us).
The main one that comes up on Google is the stabbing of Seydou Diarrassouba in 2012, in which the defendants were acquitted on grounds of self-defence. Is that the one you're thinking of? Or some other case?
It might be - trying to find the details. The specific bit that seems missing was that the victim was a attacked by a gang.
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
You are Jeffrey Archer and I claim my five pounds.
Yeah, there's some truth in that- visceral experience beats numbers. To a degree. But there are two important buts.
First is that human progress tends to come from paying more attention to the factual and less to the visceral. It's uncomfortable, but it's what makes our lives relatively pleasant.
Second is that numbers can only be trumped so far. We have a situation where a near-majority of British people think that there is more illegal migration to the UK than legal. And that's not true. It's a lie. How the hell do you run a country on the basis of a lie, even if it's commonly held? And why is that lie so commonly held? (See also polling that shows that the public think that international aid and MPs expenses are meaningful items in the national budget.)
I don't really have answers to either of those questions, but they're important.
How many do you think there are?
I've seen reasonable estimates that there are about 500K people in the workforce who don't have the right to work here.
A lot, but not a majority. After all, net migration last year was about 400k. The curse of flows and totals strikes again.
(And to put 0.5 million in context, the total UK workforce is about 34 million.)
So in a company employing 68 people, on average one of them will be illegal.
Some estimates on the numbers of illegals are significantly lower. Even so, I suspect the illegals are concentrated in specific geographies and workplaces. Most of them overstayers or on visas not permitting working rather than completely in the underground economy.
Agreed, there will be specific industries and even companies with much higher concentrations.
Are the delivery companies like Deliveroo still hiding behind their drivers being contractors and not employees, in the same way they allow their drivers to use illegal vehicles such as unregistered motorbikes with no insurance?
It would be good to see a test case of a large company that’s clearly not doing due diligence on the people working under its brand name.
Yup - look for companies using "contractors" for low paid jobs. Often with clauses allowing the "contractors" to farm out work to others.
Some Deliveroo "riders" are actually gangmasters for groups of workers - they get the contract and parcel out the work. It's a big business and full of utter scumbags.
Does there ever appear to be an acknowledgement of the issue from government, let alone anything that looks like a plan to clamp down on the illegal working practices?
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
You are Jeffrey Archer and I claim my five pounds.
Yeah, there's some truth in that- visceral experience beats numbers. To a degree. But there are two important buts.
First is that human progress tends to come from paying more attention to the factual and less to the visceral. It's uncomfortable, but it's what makes our lives relatively pleasant.
Second is that numbers can only be trumped so far. We have a situation where a near-majority of British people think that there is more illegal migration to the UK than legal. And that's not true. It's a lie. How the hell do you run a country on the basis of a lie, even if it's commonly held? And why is that lie so commonly held? (See also polling that shows that the public think that international aid and MPs expenses are meaningful items in the national budget.)
I don't really have answers to either of those questions, but they're important.
How many do you think there are?
I've seen reasonable estimates that there are about 500K people in the workforce who don't have the right to work here.
A lot, but not a majority. After all, net migration last year was about 400k. The curse of flows and totals strikes again.
(And to put 0.5 million in context, the total UK workforce is about 34 million.)
So in a company employing 68 people, on average one of them will be illegal.
Some estimates on the numbers of illegals are significantly lower. Even so, I suspect the illegals are concentrated in specific geographies and workplaces. Most of them overstayers or on visas not permitting working rather than completely in the underground economy.
Agreed, there will be specific industries and even companies with much higher concentrations.
Are the delivery companies like Deliveroo still hiding behind their drivers being contractors and not employees, in the same way they allow their drivers to use illegal vehicles such as unregistered motorbikes with no insurance?
It would be good to see a test case of a large company that’s clearly not doing due diligence on the people working under its brand name.
Yup - look for companies using "contractors" for low paid jobs. Often with clauses allowing the "contractors" to farm out work to others.
Some Deliveroo "riders" are actually gangmasters for groups of workers - they get the contract and parcel out the work. It's a big business and full of utter scumbags.
Does there ever appear to be an acknowledgement of the issue from government, let alone anything that looks like a plan to clamp down on the illegal working practices?
Nope - virtually certain that industry representatives are working the political scene. Just as the Leicester garment trade did.
A Labour councillor who called for far-right protesters' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally has been found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder.
Ricky Jones, 58, has been on trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he called demonstrators "disgusting Nazi fascists" and said "we need to get rid of them all" while addressing a crowd in Walthamstow on 7 August last year.
Mr Jones told police his remarks, captured on video, were "ill-advised" and not intended to incite or encourage violence.
The Dartford councillor, who has since been suspended by the Labour Party, had denied the charge.
He was arrested the day after making the comments and told the court he felt it was his "duty" to attend counter-protests.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version
Two tier Keir justice? What is wrong with jurors*?
And PB favourite Lucy Connolly is still banged up.
* Ricky was at the very least, very, very naughty. I wonder if Sir Two Tier will let him back into the Red Tories?
There is no link betwen a case where the jury decided that NG was the verdict and a guilty plea. Perhaps the first was not guilty, and the second person was. There is no evidence here of two tier justice, nothing wrong with jurors, and nothing arises from this case about the imprisonment of Connolly. (IMO too long; it should have been suspended or a community order)
Inter alia it might be evidence that the jury system is breaking down due to multiracialism. There is overwhelming evidence from the USA that black jurors show a racial preference in trials (eg much more likely to acquit a black defendant) whereas white jurors show almost no racial preference
I’m not sure if we have similar evidence from the UK, and the American racial experience is very different from the UK’s - but it is far from impossible that this phenomenon has crossed the Atlantic
How did you find out the ethnicity of the jurors, and how they voted?
If yesterday's Crown Court is any guide, juries have been doing some strange things since 1973 at least.
Called "The Night for Country Dancing" - it's quite sordid for 1970s British television and more daring than anything put on now.
We really have become new puritans, haven't we?
Juries have been a pain in the arse for Governments since forever. See ancient Athens and Rome for some comedies. Cicero murdered people under the form of law, because he was worried they would get off at trial.
Hence the repeated attempts to control them, abolish them etc.
Apparently Chicken Kyiv was served as the Russian in flight meal. They are taking the piss. Time to give Trump his Nobel Peace Prize on the proviso he fucks off with immediate effect.
Given the USSR was an empire built from the start on mass murder, lies, and wars of aggression, it's not wildly different from turning up in a sweatshirt with a large swastika on the front.
As it's behind a paywall and it's the Telegraph, I imagine it's long on generalities and short on specifics.
They had Maurice Glasman on LBC and he basically said the Royal Navy should be in the English Channel turning back the boats once they get into British waters. The LBC presenter (Dan Swarbrick) said words to the effect of "fair enough - what happens if we turn the boats round and the French won't accept them back?" at which point Glasman retreated into aimless blustering.
Others on here have suggested the same an on other forums that's gone further including advocating sinking the boats and leaving the migrants to drown - I imagine that's a view among the public but hopefully it will never be a view of anyone with the power to implement it.
The difficult part of politics and Government is just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
The "boats" are a problem because they've been made a problem - legal migration is by numbers much larger and to their credit Sunak and Cleverly started doing something about that and reversing Johnson's ideas. However, it's the boats (4% of all migrants I believe) which are driving the immigration debate (not the 96%) and that in turn is feeding into questions about integration and remigration starting with the illegals and then perhaps the foreign criminals in British prisons and so on.
Someone on X has just pointed out that the jury in the Jones case retired for 30 minutes
Thirty fecking minutes??? It took them just half an hour to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, and decide that as he was "dyslexic" as a child he must be innocent
THIRTY. MINUTES.
That's a jury intending to acquit, no matter what
At least Leon has the decency to blame the jury, however daft it is to do so. The usual suspects, Philp and Farage huff and puff about the acquittal, speak of two tier justice and all that without mentioning that what they are actually doing is attacking a jury for doing what juries do.
The judge will have directed them as to the elements of which they have to be sure before convicting. Maybe they had a doubt about one of them. The judge will have told them what constitutes a defence on the evidence before the court and what doesn't. If no defence appears possible the judge will say so. (Did he?)
But this whole thing is depressingly like the 'free speech' stuff. The loud voices lack all objectivity about offences and the legal process; it becomes a tribal matter of 'who whom'. Useless.
Apparently Chicken Kyiv was served as the Russian in flight meal. They are taking the piss. Time to give Trump his Nobel Peace Prize on the proviso he fucks off with immediate effect.
Given the USSR was an empire built from the start on mass murder, lies, and wars of aggression, it's not wildly different from turning up in a sweatshirt with a large swastika on the front.
Contemptible display.
I’ll make sure I never wear my 1990 Soviet soccer top with CCCP on it in future.
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
You are Jeffrey Archer and I claim my five pounds.
Yeah, there's some truth in that- visceral experience beats numbers. To a degree. But there are two important buts.
First is that human progress tends to come from paying more attention to the factual and less to the visceral. It's uncomfortable, but it's what makes our lives relatively pleasant.
Second is that numbers can only be trumped so far. We have a situation where a near-majority of British people think that there is more illegal migration to the UK than legal. And that's not true. It's a lie. How the hell do you run a country on the basis of a lie, even if it's commonly held? And why is that lie so commonly held? (See also polling that shows that the public think that international aid and MPs expenses are meaningful items in the national budget.)
I don't really have answers to either of those questions, but they're important.
How many do you think there are?
I've seen reasonable estimates that there are about 500K people in the workforce who don't have the right to work here.
A lot, but not a majority. After all, net migration last year was about 400k. The curse of flows and totals strikes again.
(And to put 0.5 million in context, the total UK workforce is about 34 million.)
So in a company employing 68 people, on average one of them will be illegal.
Some estimates on the numbers of illegals are significantly lower. Even so, I suspect the illegals are concentrated in specific geographies and workplaces. Most of them overstayers or on visas not permitting working rather than completely in the underground economy.
Agreed, there will be specific industries and even companies with much higher concentrations.
Are the delivery companies like Deliveroo still hiding behind their drivers being contractors and not employees, in the same way they allow their drivers to use illegal vehicles such as unregistered motorbikes with no insurance?
It would be good to see a test case of a large company that’s clearly not doing due diligence on the people working under its brand name.
Yup - look for companies using "contractors" for low paid jobs. Often with clauses allowing the "contractors" to farm out work to others.
Some Deliveroo "riders" are actually gangmasters for groups of workers - they get the contract and parcel out the work. It's a big business and full of utter scumbags.
Does there ever appear to be an acknowledgement of the issue from government, let alone anything that looks like a plan to clamp down on the illegal working practices?
Nope - virtually certain that industry representatives are working the political scene. Just as the Leicester garment trade did.
I wonder how high unemployment needs to go before it makes political sense to actually look at these cowboys. Ditto the fake colleges which appear to be visa farms for restaurants and ‘taxis’.
Haven't you answered your own question? Seems with Jenrick on manoeuvres and Farage on the flank, Kemi is stuck between two combatants who after her job and her votes. Amazed if she lasts to the end of 2025 at this rate.
That’s a silly thing for a politician to say on its own, without a clear plan behind it.
She needs to say that anyone arriving irregularly from France will be detained in a tent city on military land until identity is verified, and they will then be deported to either their country of citizenship or a friendly third country who will accept them, with a lifetime ban on entering the UK. Laws will be passed to this effect. Because anything short of that will not reduce the crossings to zero.
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
You are Jeffrey Archer and I claim my five pounds.
Yeah, there's some truth in that- visceral experience beats numbers. To a degree. But there are two important buts.
First is that human progress tends to come from paying more attention to the factual and less to the visceral. It's uncomfortable, but it's what makes our lives relatively pleasant.
Second is that numbers can only be trumped so far. We have a situation where a near-majority of British people think that there is more illegal migration to the UK than legal. And that's not true. It's a lie. How the hell do you run a country on the basis of a lie, even if it's commonly held? And why is that lie so commonly held? (See also polling that shows that the public think that international aid and MPs expenses are meaningful items in the national budget.)
I don't really have answers to either of those questions, but they're important.
How many do you think there are?
I've seen reasonable estimates that there are about 500K people in the workforce who don't have the right to work here.
A lot, but not a majority. After all, net migration last year was about 400k. The curse of flows and totals strikes again.
(And to put 0.5 million in context, the total UK workforce is about 34 million.)
So in a company employing 68 people, on average one of them will be illegal.
Some estimates on the numbers of illegals are significantly lower. Even so, I suspect the illegals are concentrated in specific geographies and workplaces. Most of them overstayers or on visas not permitting working rather than completely in the underground economy.
Agreed, there will be specific industries and even companies with much higher concentrations.
Are the delivery companies like Deliveroo still hiding behind their drivers being contractors and not employees, in the same way they allow their drivers to use illegal vehicles such as unregistered motorbikes with no insurance?
It would be good to see a test case of a large company that’s clearly not doing due diligence on the people working under its brand name.
Yup - look for companies using "contractors" for low paid jobs. Often with clauses allowing the "contractors" to farm out work to others.
Some Deliveroo "riders" are actually gangmasters for groups of workers - they get the contract and parcel out the work. It's a big business and full of utter scumbags.
Does there ever appear to be an acknowledgement of the issue from government, let alone anything that looks like a plan to clamp down on the illegal working practices?
Nope - virtually certain that industry representatives are working the political scene. Just as the Leicester garment trade did.
I wonder how high unemployment needs to go before it makes political sense to actually look at these cowboys. Ditto the fake colleges which appear to be visa farms for restaurants and ‘taxis’.
There must be the odd job opportunity in Croydon - they need to sweep up the books.
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
You are Jeffrey Archer and I claim my five pounds.
Yeah, there's some truth in that- visceral experience beats numbers. To a degree. But there are two important buts.
First is that human progress tends to come from paying more attention to the factual and less to the visceral. It's uncomfortable, but it's what makes our lives relatively pleasant.
Second is that numbers can only be trumped so far. We have a situation where a near-majority of British people think that there is more illegal migration to the UK than legal. And that's not true. It's a lie. How the hell do you run a country on the basis of a lie, even if it's commonly held? And why is that lie so commonly held? (See also polling that shows that the public think that international aid and MPs expenses are meaningful items in the national budget.)
I don't really have answers to either of those questions, but they're important.
How many do you think there are?
I've seen reasonable estimates that there are about 500K people in the workforce who don't have the right to work here.
A lot, but not a majority. After all, net migration last year was about 400k. The curse of flows and totals strikes again.
(And to put 0.5 million in context, the total UK workforce is about 34 million.)
So in a company employing 68 people, on average one of them will be illegal.
Some estimates on the numbers of illegals are significantly lower. Even so, I suspect the illegals are concentrated in specific geographies and workplaces. Most of them overstayers or on visas not permitting working rather than completely in the underground economy.
Agreed, there will be specific industries and even companies with much higher concentrations.
Are the delivery companies like Deliveroo still hiding behind their drivers being contractors and not employees, in the same way they allow their drivers to use illegal vehicles such as unregistered motorbikes with no insurance?
It would be good to see a test case of a large company that’s clearly not doing due diligence on the people working under its brand name.
Yup - look for companies using "contractors" for low paid jobs. Often with clauses allowing the "contractors" to farm out work to others.
Some Deliveroo "riders" are actually gangmasters for groups of workers - they get the contract and parcel out the work. It's a big business and full of utter scumbags.
Does there ever appear to be an acknowledgement of the issue from government, let alone anything that looks like a plan to clamp down on the illegal working practices?
Nope - virtually certain that industry representatives are working the political scene. Just as the Leicester garment trade did.
I wonder how high unemployment needs to go before it makes political sense to actually look at these cowboys. Ditto the fake colleges which appear to be visa farms for restaurants and ‘taxis’.
In economic terms, probably never. People like cheap taxis, food delivery and restaurants, and would be awfully cross if they had to pay non-exploitative rates for them. It doesn't really affect unemployment either, because at proper rates, the jobs just don't exist.
You don't need a conspiracy, beyond the British love of a bargain.
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
You are Jeffrey Archer and I claim my five pounds.
Yeah, there's some truth in that- visceral experience beats numbers. To a degree. But there are two important buts.
First is that human progress tends to come from paying more attention to the factual and less to the visceral. It's uncomfortable, but it's what makes our lives relatively pleasant.
Second is that numbers can only be trumped so far. We have a situation where a near-majority of British people think that there is more illegal migration to the UK than legal. And that's not true. It's a lie. How the hell do you run a country on the basis of a lie, even if it's commonly held? And why is that lie so commonly held? (See also polling that shows that the public think that international aid and MPs expenses are meaningful items in the national budget.)
I don't really have answers to either of those questions, but they're important.
How many do you think there are?
I've seen reasonable estimates that there are about 500K people in the workforce who don't have the right to work here.
A lot, but not a majority. After all, net migration last year was about 400k. The curse of flows and totals strikes again.
(And to put 0.5 million in context, the total UK workforce is about 34 million.)
So in a company employing 68 people, on average one of them will be illegal.
Some estimates on the numbers of illegals are significantly lower. Even so, I suspect the illegals are concentrated in specific geographies and workplaces. Most of them overstayers or on visas not permitting working rather than completely in the underground economy.
Agreed, there will be specific industries and even companies with much higher concentrations.
Are the delivery companies like Deliveroo still hiding behind their drivers being contractors and not employees, in the same way they allow their drivers to use illegal vehicles such as unregistered motorbikes with no insurance?
It would be good to see a test case of a large company that’s clearly not doing due diligence on the people working under its brand name.
Yup - look for companies using "contractors" for low paid jobs. Often with clauses allowing the "contractors" to farm out work to others.
Some Deliveroo "riders" are actually gangmasters for groups of workers - they get the contract and parcel out the work. It's a big business and full of utter scumbags.
Does there ever appear to be an acknowledgement of the issue from government, let alone anything that looks like a plan to clamp down on the illegal working practices?
Nope - virtually certain that industry representatives are working the political scene. Just as the Leicester garment trade did.
I wonder how high unemployment needs to go before it makes political sense to actually look at these cowboys. Ditto the fake colleges which appear to be visa farms for restaurants and ‘taxis’.
In economic terms, probably never. People like cheap taxis, food delivery and restaurants, and would be awfully cross if they had to pay non-exploitative rates for them. It doesn't really affect unemployment either, because at proper rates, the jobs just don't exist.
You don't need a conspiracy, beyond the British love of a bargain.
Perhaps one can be overly optimistic about the efforts a Labour government would put in to tackling exploitative labour practices in nascent industries.
Or do they simply not care because there’s no Union representing this particular group of exploited workers, and some of their bosses are Party donors or activists?
Here's more recent polling that you won't hear Trump or Farage supporters mentioning.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx ...Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.
These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups...
The paradox of the migration debate.
Most people want the total numbers to fall, but don't want the numbers in most migration scenarios to fall. It's not quite "less migrants in theory but not in practice", but it's pretty close;
The way that most people square that circle is to massively overestimate the proportion of immigration that is irregular/illegal because the boats are so visible. From that YouGov link,
Our research shows that almost half of Britons (47%) think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally, including fully a third of the public (32%) who think the illegal figure is “much higher”.
As our American friends are currently discovering, anti-immigrant talk is much more popular than anti-immigrant action.
Those YouGov findings are really important. The radical right has done a very good propaganda job of convincing people that most immigrants are illegal and coming for benefits. Instead of pandering to them, the Labour government needs to push back and make clear how that's not true and that immigrants are mostly the sort of immigration people like.
lol
You should put that on the bus along with "they're not really 4 star hotels because often room service is slow"
Centrist dads don't understand the difference between facts and truth. And they get all upset when others do.
Do you mean that in MEGA world alternate facts are truths?
Best illustrated with an example, I think, since it's a complex philosophical area:
The vast majority of immigrants to the UK come here legally and are decent, law-abiding people. This is FACT.
We are being swamped by illegals most of whom get put up in luxury hotels leaving their rooms only to rape and pillage. This is TRUTH.
President Trump grasps this important distinction better than anyone on earth. Hence the name of his platform. It's not FACT SOCIAL is it.
You’ve definitely put a finger on something there. I’m fond of an inconvenient fact (less so when it’s inconvenient to my world view of course), but recognising uncomfortable facts is pretty much the foundation of civilised discourse.
Haven't you answered your own question? Seems with Jenrick on manoeuvres and Farage on the flank, Kemi is stuck between two combatants who after her job and her votes. Amazed if she lasts to the end of 2025 at this rate.
AIUI roughly 80% of the boat people are found to be entitled to asylum. So they are not ultimately "illegal". Indeed, under our current laws, we have duties and obligations to assist them.
I am bored with politicians who wilfully ignore that reality because they want to sound "tough". If you are serious about stopping immigration change the laws, don't pretend.
On topic: I think Florida is now beyond the Democrats reach, even with Trump doing his best to upset the Latino community. (Not least because there isn't 'one' Latino community, there are many,)
Texas is more interesting, not least because of the vicious fight ahead over the Republican Senatorial nomination, with Ken Paxton coming after Cornyn.
My gut on this one is that if Paxton is the nominee - and let's not forget Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives - then the Democrats have a real shout. We shall see.
Someone on X has just pointed out that the jury in the Jones case retired for 30 minutes
Thirty fecking minutes??? It took them just half an hour to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, and decide that as he was "dyslexic" as a child he must be innocent
THIRTY. MINUTES.
That's a jury intending to acquit, no matter what
At least Leon has the decency to blame the jury, however daft it is to do so. The usual suspects, Philp and Farage huff and puff about the acquittal, speak of two tier justice and all that without mentioning that what they are actually doing is attacking a jury for doing what juries do.
The judge will have directed them as to the elements of which they have to be sure before convicting. Maybe they had a doubt about one of them. The judge will have told them what constitutes a defence on the evidence before the court and what doesn't. If no defence appears possible the judge will say so. (Did he?)
But this whole thing is depressingly like the 'free speech' stuff. The loud voices lack all objectivity about offences and the legal process; it becomes a tribal matter of 'who whom'. Useless.
Fairly typical for snarebrook crown court juries though. They specialise in perverse decisions.
Lucy Connolly was bullied into pleading guilty by a police force and prosecution service determined to make examples. Weirdly, they didn’t do that to Ricky Jones
I suspect Connolly was told she would get a very minor punishment if she pleaded guilty.
It would be interesting to know who told her that, if it's true.
I would guess plod regularly do similar.
Hasn't it been regularly mentioned that plod encourage people to accept cautions without mentioning that cautions count as a criminal record ?
Didn’t that happen recently with the guy who was carrying a trowel and other garden tools home.
If people’s starting point in life is ACAB and work back based on personal experience they won’t be badly served
General rule is to never accept a police caution as it can be career-ending (teachers etc) or life-limiting (DBS check for helping out with your kid's sports team)
But if everybody did that there'd be lots more CJS resource absorbed dealing with minor offences.
Or it would be dropped because there isn't a case or it's not in the public interest, they're offering you a caution because it's an easy way of closing the paperwork with a result for them and the offence, if any, is minor.
Ok but if there's nothing between nothing and a prosecution, and we don't prosecute minor offences, aren't we then effectively saying there is no such thing as a minor offence? They cease to exist.
Examples I know of are a) where no offence occurred (item was lost and an allegation of theft was made) Police offered a caution at random to one of the accused adults to make the accuser happy - luckily rejected as would have been career-ending. b) acrimonious row between divorcing couple, no physical violence but police called, caution accepted, career ending, other partner had to make a large financial settlement in the divorce due to the overall loss of income. Everyone's a loser.
I'm not a solicitor / police station rep though, so my experience is very limited
Is there any evidence that a caution has a deterrent effect vs "words of advice"/several hours in a police station?
They both seem like abuses of the system, yes. I don't have much experience of it either. But I would have thought there are plenty of cases where the person is guilty of the offence in question and they take a caution in preference to being prosecuted. Stress avoided. Time and resource saved. Yes they get a record but that's no scandal because they have committed a crime and been caught. This is not to object to your main point. People who aren't guilty taking police cautions under pressure, not knowing the implications, this is not a good thing at all.
Apparently Chicken Kyiv was served as the Russian in flight meal. They are taking the piss. Time to give Trump his Nobel Peace Prize on the proviso he fucks off with immediate effect.
Given the USSR was an empire built from the start on mass murder, lies, and wars of aggression, it's not wildly different from turning up in a sweatshirt with a large swastika on the front.
Contemptible display.
No, no, no - you don't understand. The communists had the best of intentions. Yes I know millions died and all that, and it was a bit sad, what with all that starvation, and purging, and executions, but sometimes things need to be done to encourage the others...
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
Because she had not a leg to stand on. She could argue extenuating circumstances -like she was pissed or her husband called her a nasty mean spirited cow which had put her in a bad mood-but what she couldn't do was deny she had written the unquestionably disgusting post calling for a mob to set fire to some innocent refugees simply fleeing from persecution.
The jury system is the bulwark of the English criminal legal system, and we are rightly proud of it.
Except when a) they give verdicts we don't like, and/or b) they're at Snaresbrook Crown Court.
The jury system had to be abolished in Northern Ireland because members of each community wouldn't convict someone from the same community as them, and would always find someone guilty from the opposite community.
Jury trial is the default in NI.
The Diplock courts were for terrorist offences only
Diplock courts addressed the wrong problem anyway, according to Ian Paisley. Juries were fine but the problem was witness intimidation.
First he couldnt organise a fishing trip, next it;s a pub lunch - piss up and brewery beckon.
This is where we needed Boris. He knows how to throw a party!
Ironically since partygate brought him down, by all accounts Boris is rubbish at parties, being neither gregarious nor coordinated. Downing Street Wine-time Fridays took place after Boris had left for Chequers. Michael Gove, on the other hand...
"MP James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said on social media platform X that the verdict was "unacceptable".
"Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system," he said."
It seems a weird decision but I do not think that even shadow Ministers should be undermining the courts or our jury system like this. Its not a responsible thing to do for someone in such a position. I thought Cleverly was supposed to be one of the smarter ones.
That's pretty disgraceful from Cleverly. It's tantamount to saying that the 12 jurors, who have no stake in the criminal justice system but simply give a verdict based on the evidence they hear and the guidance they are given by the judge, of being corrupt. He should withdraw that tweet.
The big question is: why did Lucy Connelly plead guilty? I hope she wasn't pressured into it.
Because she had not a leg to stand on. She could argue extenuating circumstances -like she was pissed or her husband called her a nasty mean spirited cow which had put her in a bad mood-but what she couldn't do was deny she had written the unquestionably disgusting post calling for a mob to set fire to some innocent refugees simply fleeing from persecution.
She didn't, she said (IIRC) that she didn't care if they burned to death. You could argue that is not incitement, especially as she had second thoughts and deleted the tweet.
First he couldnt organise a fishing trip, next it;s a pub lunch - piss up and brewery beckon.
This is where we needed Boris. He knows how to throw a party!
Ironically since partygate brought him down, by all accounts Boris is rubbish at parties, being neither gregarious nor coordinated. Downing Street Wine-time Fridays took place after Boris had left for Chequers. Michael Gove, on the other hand...
You don't mean he was unavailable from Friday night dinner to after breakfast on Monday. Part-time PM or what?
Someone on X has just pointed out that the jury in the Jones case retired for 30 minutes
Thirty fecking minutes??? It took them just half an hour to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, and decide that as he was "dyslexic" as a child he must be innocent
THIRTY. MINUTES.
That's a jury intending to acquit, no matter what
May be because they thought the Lucy Connolly sentence was excessive?
Apparently Chicken Kyiv was served as the Russian in flight meal. They are taking the piss. Time to give Trump his Nobel Peace Prize on the proviso he fucks off with immediate effect.
Given the USSR was an empire built from the start on mass murder, lies, and wars of aggression, it's not wildly different from turning up in a sweatshirt with a large swastika on the front.
Contemptible display.
I’ll make sure I never wear my 1990 Soviet soccer top with CCCP on it in future.
Someone on X has just pointed out that the jury in the Jones case retired for 30 minutes
Thirty fecking minutes??? It took them just half an hour to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, and decide that as he was "dyslexic" as a child he must be innocent
THIRTY. MINUTES.
That's a jury intending to acquit, no matter what
May be because they thought the Lucy Connolly sentence was excessive?
Jury nullification is a strategy
Perhaps. It is said that one of the reasons for abolishing capital punishment in the 1960s was that juries were becoming reluctant to convict.
Apparently Chicken Kyiv was served as the Russian in flight meal. They are taking the piss. Time to give Trump his Nobel Peace Prize on the proviso he fucks off with immediate effect.
Given the USSR was an empire built from the start on mass murder, lies, and wars of aggression, it's not wildly different from turning up in a sweatshirt with a large swastika on the front.
Contemptible display.
I’ll make sure I never wear my 1990 Soviet soccer top with CCCP on it in future.
When I was a kid in Scotland, the only goalkeepers with big name recognition were Banks and Yashin, so I also have an unwearable jersey.
Comments
It was probably Tuesday of week 2..
"Who needs to get back to work because it's costing them £100s/day?" "How many agree that this was a total waste of our time?" 3? 4? OK, Not Guilty then, nice to meet you all.
Two of the attackers (teenagers) held the victim down while he was stabbed. Instead of charging them with murder, they were charged with a form of assault and got 12 months each. With time off for good behaviour, time on remand etc, it was commented that they would be, literally, out in time for Christmas.
Speaking of which, it's this performative nonsense of a summit today, isn't it. I won't be watching. It's a trivial act of defiance in the grand scheme of things but perhaps it will catch on and explode into a global grassroots "ignore Donald Trump" movement. Great oaks and all that.
Called "The Night for Country Dancing" - it's quite sordid for 1970s British television and more daring than anything put on now.
We really have become new puritans, haven't we?
a) where no offence occurred (item was lost and an allegation of theft was made) Police offered a caution at random to one of the accused adults to make the accuser happy - luckily rejected as would have been career-ending.
b) acrimonious row between divorcing couple, no physical violence but police called, caution accepted, career ending, other partner had to make a large financial settlement in the divorce due to the overall loss of income. Everyone's a loser.
I'm not a solicitor / police station rep though, so my experience is very limited
Is there any evidence that a caution has a deterrent effect vs "words of advice"/several hours in a police station?
Hence the repeated attempts to control them, abolish them etc.
In those days, apart from the foreman, the rest were members of the public and they had half an hour to make a decision.
I’ve got most of them somewhere on my strapons. They’re great for the casts.
Contemptible display.
They had Maurice Glasman on LBC and he basically said the Royal Navy should be in the English Channel turning back the boats once they get into British waters. The LBC presenter (Dan Swarbrick) said words to the effect of "fair enough - what happens if we turn the boats round and the French won't accept them back?" at which point Glasman retreated into aimless blustering.
Others on here have suggested the same an on other forums that's gone further including advocating sinking the boats and leaving the migrants to drown - I imagine that's a view among the public but hopefully it will never be a view of anyone with the power to implement it.
The difficult part of politics and Government is just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
The "boats" are a problem because they've been made a problem - legal migration is by numbers much larger and to their credit Sunak and Cleverly started doing something about that and reversing Johnson's ideas. However, it's the boats (4% of all migrants I believe) which are driving the immigration debate (not the 96%) and that in turn is feeding into questions about integration and remigration starting with the illegals and then perhaps the foreign criminals in British prisons and so on.
The judge will have directed them as to the elements of which they have to be sure before convicting. Maybe they had a doubt about one of them. The judge will have told them what constitutes a defence on the evidence before the court and what doesn't. If no defence appears possible the judge will say so. (Did he?)
But this whole thing is depressingly like the 'free speech' stuff. The loud voices lack all objectivity about offences and the legal process; it becomes a tribal matter of 'who whom'. Useless.
She needs to say that anyone arriving irregularly from France will be detained in a tent city on military land until identity is verified, and they will then be deported to either their country of citizenship or a friendly third country who will accept them, with a lifetime ban on entering the UK. Laws will be passed to this effect. Because anything short of that will not reduce the crossings to zero.
You don't need a conspiracy, beyond the British love of a bargain.
NEW THREAD
Or do they simply not care because there’s no Union representing this particular group of exploited workers, and some of their bosses are Party donors or activists?
When you look at Trump. Then you look at Putin. And then at Lavrov.
Jeez.
What a grim and ludicrous set of fyzogs.
And there they are, deciding the fate of millions.
I am bored with politicians who wilfully ignore that reality because they want to sound "tough". If you are serious about stopping immigration change the laws, don't pretend.
Texas is more interesting, not least because of the vicious fight ahead over the Republican Senatorial nomination, with Ken Paxton coming after Cornyn.
My gut on this one is that if Paxton is the nominee - and let's not forget Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives - then the Democrats have a real shout. We shall see.
Jury nullification is a strategy