politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember 2005 when LAB and CON were level pegging on votes
Comments
-
There was an outstanding piece by the liberal Jonathan Chait the other day about how illiberal the politically correct philosophy is. It's long, but well-worth the read:Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.
If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html0 -
The whole idea of a plea bargain (except possibly in the narrow case of turning Queen's Evidence) is against justice anyway, it gives scope for easy coercion with the accused being bluffed into accepting a lesser charge when the evidence of the more serious charge makes conviction unlikely, it puts innocence facing a stiff jail term in a ridiculous position, and the interests of the defence aren't really the interests of the state (the defending lawyer would usually rather a quick win than a higher profit possible loss).MaxPB said:
My issue is that the new guidance will be coupled with plea bargains by the police/CPS and a lot of people innocent people will end up being convinced into pleading guilty to avoid a court case which they will be told they will lose under the new rules. I trust neither the police nor the CPS.Flockers_pb said:MaxPB/Socrates,
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.0 -
My concern would be that there'd be pressure on prosecutors to bring weak cases, which then fall apart in court, which does no one any favours.MaxPB said:
My issue is that the new guidance will be coupled with plea bargains by the police/CPS and a lot of people innocent people will end up being convinced into pleading guilty to avoid a court case which they will be told they will lose under the new rules. I trust neither the police nor the CPS.Flockers_pb said:MaxPB/Socrates,
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.
The biggest issue I have though is that this guidance is clearly aimed at increasing the conviction rate, which means it is about the numbers/targets rather than justice. A justice model based on conviction rate targets will lead to innocent people being incarcerated or on the sexual offences register.0 -
Max - where are these Swedish men-seeking women to whom you refer? I think we should be told.MaxPB said:
Mrs Max's best friend is from Sweden and the number one complaint I hear from her is that Swedish men are all too effete which is why so many Swedish girls come here to find husbands. I know at least three guys who are dating Swedish women, so anecdotally I see her point.Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Over there the equalities agenda seems to have gone so far as to emasculate men and force women who don't want that to look overseas.0 -
I agree with that 100%.Socrates said:
There was an outstanding piece by the liberal Jonathan Chait the other day about how illiberal the politically correct philosophy is. It's long, but well-worth the read:Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.
If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html0 -
MaxPB, but that's the point, the rules aren't changing. The prosecution will still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent and that the defendant knew the victim did not consent or was reckless as to whether the victim consented. Rape is and will remain an incredibly difficult crime to prove, because of the typically private nature of the act. If more robust questioning by the police results in some defendants incriminating themselves by acknowledging that they were aware the victim was incapacitated, then that is no bad thing. Accused persons will still have access to lawyers who can advise on the merits of the case and advise them against self-incrimination and bad plea bargains.MaxPB said:
My issue is that the new guidance will be coupled with plea bargains by the police/CPS and a lot of people innocent people will end up being convinced into pleading guilty to avoid a court case which they will be told they will lose under the new rules. I trust neither the police nor the CPS.
The biggest issue I have though is that this guidance is clearly aimed at increasing the conviction rate, which means it is about the numbers/targets rather than justice. A justice model based on conviction rate targets will lead to innocent people being incarcerated or on the sexual offences register.
There is a fundamental point of unfairness at the heart of the law, which means that technically two people who get identically paralytic and engage in enthusiastic coupling are designated a rapist and a victim merely by reference to their role in the act (the penetrated is deemed incapable of consent, and the penetrator reckless as to the absence of consent because they would have known the penetrated was incapacitated if they had been sober). But that has always been part of the law and mercifully very few cases of that type are prosecuted. The real concern is if there arises a greater willingness to prosecute those cases (as opposed to cases where a more sober perpetrator manifestly takes advantage of an incapacitated victim).Inevitably there will be hard cases at the boundary; there always are.
0 -
Swedish women are fantastic.MaxPB said:
Mrs Max's best friend is from Sweden and the number one complaint I hear from her is that Swedish men are all too effete which is why so many Swedish girls come here to find husbands. I know at least three guys who are dating Swedish women, so anecdotally I see her point.Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Over there the equalities agenda seems to have gone so far as to emasculate men and force women who don't want that to look overseas.0 -
How and in what way ? I realise you are an ardent Tory but trying to spin this as some sort of gaffe is absurd even by your low standards.Scott_P said:@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.
If someone had asked Cameron in 2010 whether he would rule out coalition with the LDs his answer would have been "my priority is a majority Conservative Government" and no one would have called that a gaffe.
0 -
SeanF - I agree. We will see many more of those. And the debate about anonymity for accused will continue as a result.0
-
Agreed, was once a student in Stockholm for 5 months of a long hot summer.Casino_Royale said:
Swedish women are fantastic.MaxPB said:
Mrs Max's best friend is from Sweden and the number one complaint I hear from her is that Swedish men are all too effete which is why so many Swedish girls come here to find husbands. I know at least three guys who are dating Swedish women, so anecdotally I see her point.Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Over there the equalities agenda seems to have gone so far as to emasculate men and force women who don't want that to look overseas.0 -
Struggling to see an issue with that response.Scott_P said:@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.0 -
OT In the luxury end of the market, I never thought teddy bears would be so frigging expensive. I went to the Steiff website, and to buy a new polar bear would cost me £350.
My greyhound ate my last one and it didn't cost £350 in 1988 even allowing for inflation. I remain gobsmacked that ANYONE would pay £350 for a cuddly toy that cost about £2.50 to make.
I subscribe to House & Garden and now don't feel so decadent!0 -
What this shows is that for all his lack of charisma, Ed Miliband is an exceedingly sure-footed politician. There are a bunch of people on the lookout for a gaffe and Scott P is always waiting eagerly for something to retweet here, but the best he can come up with is the politician's equivalent of "Good morning".stodge said:
How and in what way ? I realise you are an ardent Tory but trying to spin this as some sort of gaffe is absurd even by your low standards.Scott_P said:@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.
If someone had asked Cameron in 2010 whether he would rule out coalition with the LDs his answer would have been "my priority is a majority Conservative Government" and no one would have called that a gaffe.0 -
Interesting your claim that being viewed as a potential Government in waiting is a disadvantage. It didn't seem to damage Tony Blair in 1996-7.Flockers_pb said:
I couldn't disagree more. At this stage in 2010 the Conservatives had completed their policy review, a clear policy platform and a united front bench, were visibly a potential government in waiting and were treated as such by the media (to their detriment). Cameron himself enjoyed positive leader ratings.
Labour cannot claim any of these things. Internal sources tell us the policy review has been a shambles. Policy pronouncements, such as they are, are piecemeal, inconsistent and illogical (the energy price freeze alone is a classic example of ignorance and incompetence). Half the shadow cabinet, including some of the supposed big hitters, are absent. The leader of the Scottish Labour party has publicly declared independence. Miliband is widely derided across the nation, with approval levels that would alarm IDS, and is even less popular than the Conservative prime minister in Scotland. He is frequently criticised from within his own party in the strongest terms. Tellingly a great many big hitters within the Labour movement have moved on, showing no signs of wishing to return to parliament or senior positions while Ed is in charge. Cameron had the confidence and the authority to include Hague, IDS and Ken Clarke in his shadow cabinet and/or first cabinet; meanwhile a very capable shadow cabinet could be formed by the experience Labour former ministers who are currently occupying themselves with other matters. The differences between them are stark.
I'd be interested to hear your case for Ed having been a competent leader of the Labour party.
I'd take the opposite view of the energy price freeze - AT THE TIME, it was hailed as a good move though I do agree circumstances (hardly foreseeable at the time) have rendered it meaningless (much like Osborne's commitment on IHT in 2007).
The pro-Conservative set have passed judgement on Miliband as they routinely do on every Labour leader (incompetent, not up to the job etc, etc) so that can be ignored. As for the general public, perceptions have been fed through the pro-Conservative press which haven't been favourable but once we get into the campaign I suspect things will change though they may not. I'd be more worried about Cameron's temperament facing hostile public questionning on issues like immigration and Europe.
I do agree on policy inasmuch as I can only see a Labour Government being a continuation of the Brown years (much as a Cameron Govenrment was a continuation of the Blair years I suppose).
0 -
Ditto.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that 100%.Socrates said:
There was an outstanding piece by the liberal Jonathan Chait the other day about how illiberal the politically correct philosophy is. It's long, but well-worth the read:Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.
If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html0 -
You are misreading my post and misremembering last winter.peter_from_putney said:
Still time for some catching up on last winter, I fancy - especially since, IIRC, the really cold part of last year's winter occurred towards the very end of the season.OblitusSumMe said:
Nearly two-thirds of the way through and the temperature this winter in England is about 0.8C above average.another_richard said:Global warming coming down from the skies for the third (or fourth) time this winter in Yorkshire.
Weren't we told it was to become a once a decade event ?
That is cooler than last winter, when the temperature only just dipped below average on a mere five days, and for the season as a whole was almost 2.0C above average.
Last winter had a nondescript first half of December, then it rained for the next two and a half months, with the rain coming from relatively warm maritime airmasses - February was the most anomalously warm month of last winter.
You might be thinking of the winter before, 2012-2013, when March 2013 was the sort of month that will go down in the record books, along with December 2010 and July 2006.0 -
It's fine, though uninspiring. A more confident leader would have explained why a majority Labour government was what the nation needed as well.saddened said:
Struggling to see an issue with that response.Scott_P said:@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.0 -
My second belly-laugh of the day.
Clearly *sure-footed* has become lost in translation between here and Japan.edmundintokyo said:
What this shows is that for all his lack of charisma, Ed Miliband is an exceedingly sure-footed politician. There are a bunch of people on the lookout for a gaffe and Scott P is always waiting eagerly for something to retweet here, but the best he can come up with is the politician's equivalent of "Good morning".stodge said:
How and in what way ? I realise you are an ardent Tory but trying to spin this as some sort of gaffe is absurd even by your low standards.Scott_P said:@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.
If someone had asked Cameron in 2010 whether he would rule out coalition with the LDs his answer would have been "my priority is a majority Conservative Government" and no one would have called that a gaffe.0 -
It may be a problem in rarefied circles in the US. So far the UK has scarcely been touched by this.Plato said:Ditto.
Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that 100%.Socrates said:
There was an outstanding piece by the liberal Jonathan Chait the other day about how illiberal the politically correct philosophy is. It's long, but well-worth the read:Casino_Royale said:
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.AndyJS said:It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.
If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html0 -
A very interesting article by James Forsyth on the impact of Greece on the EU, the UK renegotation, and French and German politics:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9427141/europes-crisis-is-camerons-opportunity/
0 -
I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.0 -
Isam,
I liked the Mills and Boon take-off.
A serious point. Even if the change is only to catch out the thickos who may incriminate themselves, is that really a step forward for justice? Some of the thickos probably need the protection of the law to stop them confessing to starting World War Two.0 -
And thus, Realist Labour was born.....Scott_P said:@GuidoFawkes: It’s pretty telling that the only people leaping to Ed’s defence today are Kinnock and Prescott. http://t.co/FTBRdS977k
@JohnRentoul: Hope so. RT @PickardJE: Consensus seems to be that Blairite former ministers are already preparing for a post-defeat civil war.
0 -
I agree. After the experience of the LDs in coalition no other party will be keen.Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
2 elections this year also good value for much the same reasons.0 -
Prescott and Kinnock. What a pair of political jokes to be backing your corner.0
-
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.0 -
Not sure I like 2 elections as a bet to be honest, chances are there will be some sort of arrangement that will probably last more than a year I think, also the Fixed term parliament act needs to be overturned, and whoever is holding power at the time may not want to rock that particular boat.foxinsoxuk said:
I agree. After the experience of the LDs in coalition no other party will be keen.Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
2 elections this year also good value for much the same reasons.0 -
You need to have very sure feet in an audience with BBC execs.Plato said:My second belly-laugh of the day.
Clearly *sure-footed* has become lost in translation between here and Japan.edmundintokyo said:
What this shows is that for all his lack of charisma, Ed Miliband is an exceedingly sure-footed politician. There are a bunch of people on the lookout for a gaffe and Scott P is always waiting eagerly for something to retweet here, but the best he can come up with is the politician's equivalent of "Good morning".stodge said:
How and in what way ? I realise you are an ardent Tory but trying to spin this as some sort of gaffe is absurd even by your low standards.Scott_P said:@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.
If someone had asked Cameron in 2010 whether he would rule out coalition with the LDs his answer would have been "my priority is a majority Conservative Government" and no one would have called that a gaffe.0 -
Matt Lee @APDiploWriter 22m22 minutes ago
Classic. It's a brave new (media) world.
@nytimes: Michelle Obama Praised for Bold Stand She Didn’t Take in #Saudi"
http://nyti.ms/1A1juby0 -
Blair's was a special case; there was such enthusiasm for his new approach that he swept all before him. Cameron's Conservative opposition were not in the same league as Blair's New Labour project (just as Miliband's operation is not in the same league as Cameron's was), but Cameron was also adversely affected by the cynicism that had become ingrained in politics (in part influenced by the media's recognition that they were insufficiently robust in holding Blair to account in the early years). Miliband suffers from that too, of course, but doesn't even have the advantage that Cameron had of having done the detailed work to prepare for the questionning he received during the campaign.stodge said:
Interesting your claim that being viewed as a potential Government in waiting is a disadvantage. It didn't seem to damage Tony Blair in 1996-7.
I'd take the opposite view of the energy price freeze - AT THE TIME, it was hailed as a good move though I do agree circumstances (hardly foreseeable at the time) have rendered it meaningless (much like Osborne's commitment on IHT in 2007).
The pro-Conservative set have passed judgement on Miliband as they routinely do on every Labour leader (incompetent, not up to the job etc, etc) so that can be ignored. As for the general public, perceptions have been fed through the pro-Conservative press which haven't been favourable but once we get into the campaign I suspect things will change though they may not. I'd be more worried about Cameron's temperament facing hostile public questionning on issues like immigration and Europe.
I do agree on policy inasmuch as I can only see a Labour Government being a continuation of the Brown years (much as a Cameron Govenrment was a continuation of the Blair years I suppose).
I am afraid you are simply wrong on the energy price freeze. At the time it was hailed as being a popular measure; but there was no shortage of people (myself included) who warned that very day that it was economically illiterate and would damage investment in the energy sector. The fact that prices have now fallen is not really the issue (though it did neatly demonstrate that Miliband hadn't even countenanced that possibility). It was the fact that a man who aspires to be prime minister could propose such a simplistic, deeply flawed measure without any apparent appreciation of the consequences.
Please don't try to pretend that Miliband's ratings are dismal because perceptions are fed through the pro-Conservative press. They are dismal because people are well capable of making their own assessments on the evidence presented to them. And that is not just the public at large, but his close colleagues, who judge him on their experience of him. It wasn't the Daily Mail that made Ed forget to mention the deficit in his conference speech.0 -
My concern is that with more of these cases coming to court, judges come under pressure to not be a judge that "fails to convict rapists". Ched Evans is clearly a dirty scumbag, but he was sent to jail for five years on the basis that his sexual partner was too drunk to consent, even though there wasn't any medical evidence demonstrating her drunkenness, and she was sober enough to consent with the guy immediately before.Sean_F said:
My concern would be that there'd be pressure on prosecutors to bring weak cases, which then fall apart in court, which does no one any favours.MaxPB said:
My issue is that the new guidance will be coupled with plea bargains by the police/CPS and a lot of people innocent people will end up being convinced into pleading guilty to avoid a court case which they will be told they will lose under the new rules. I trust neither the police nor the CPS.Flockers_pb said:MaxPB/Socrates,
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.
The biggest issue I have though is that this guidance is clearly aimed at increasing the conviction rate, which means it is about the numbers/targets rather than justice. A justice model based on conviction rate targets will lead to innocent people being incarcerated or on the sexual offences register.0 -
Another load of superheated bollocks from James Forsyth.Richard_Nabavi said:A very interesting article by James Forsyth on the impact of Greece on the EU, the UK renegotation, and French and German politics:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9427141/europes-crisis-is-camerons-opportunity/0 -
I think it will terribly difficult for Milliband now to alter public perceptions in the short campaign.stodge said:
Interesting your claim that being viewed as a potential Government in waiting is a disadvantage. It didn't seem to damage Tony Blair in 1996-7.Flockers_pb said:
I couldn't disagree more. At this stage in 2010 the Conservatives had completed their policy review, a clear policy platform and a united front bench, were visibly a potential government in waiting and were treated as such by the media (to their detriment). Cameron himself enjoyed positive leader ratings.
Labour cannot claim any of these things. Internal sources tell us the policy review has been a shambles. Policy pronouncements, such as they are, are piecemeal, inconsistent and illogical (the energy price freeze alone is a classic example of ignorance and incompetence). Half the shadow cabinet, including some of the supposed big hitters, are absent. The leader of the Scottish Labour party has publicly declared independence. Miliband is widely derided across the nation, with approval levels that would alarm IDS, and is even less popular than the Conservative prime minister in Scotland. He is frequently criticised from within his own party in the strongest terms. Tellingly a great many big hitters within the Labour movement have moved on, showing no signs of wishing to return to parliament or senior positions while Ed is in charge. Cameron had the confidence and the authority to include Hague, IDS and Ken Clarke in his shadow cabinet and/or first cabinet; meanwhile a very capable shadow cabinet could be formed by the experience Labour former ministers who are currently occupying themselves with other matters. The differences between them are stark.
I'd be interested to hear your case for Ed having been a competent leader of the Labour party.
I'd take the opposite view of the energy price freeze - AT THE TIME, it was hailed as a good move though I do agree circumstances (hardly foreseeable at the time) have rendered it meaningless (much like Osborne's commitment on IHT in 2007).
The pro-Conservative set have passed judgement on Miliband as they routinely do on every Labour leader (incompetent, not up to the job etc, etc) so that can be ignored. As for the general public, perceptions have been fed through the pro-Conservative press which haven't been favourable but once we get into the campaign I suspect things will change though they may not. I'd be more worried about Cameron's temperament facing hostile public questionning on issues like immigration and Europe.
I do agree on policy inasmuch as I can only see a Labour Government being a continuation of the Brown years (much as a Cameron Govenrment was a continuation of the Blair years I suppose).
But, if the cards fall right, he might still become PM with 32% of the vote.
0 -
"So then Wayne, you'll plead guilty to annexing the Sudetenland, want invading Poland to be taken into consideration - but you still insist you didn't nick the Nova?"CD13 said:Isam,
I liked the Mills and Boon take-off.
A serious point. Even if the change is only to catch out the thickos who may incriminate themselves, is that really a step forward for justice? Some of the thickos probably need the protection of the law to stop them confessing to starting World War Two.
0 -
Yes, I got on at 7-1, have chased it up at 5s - but if the Labour vote share decreases between here and the election, the Conservatives could well have a minority Gov't tooantifrank said:
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
So far as I can tell the following have been ruled out/in
DUP/UKIP ruled out coalition and seem to be working as a block - I think they would back up a Con minority.
Lib Dems have ruled out coalition with UKIP
SNP have ruled out coalition with Conservatives, or indeed minority support <- That's potentially huge for Labour.
SNP seem to be hinting at minority Labour support, but haven't completely ruled out coalition.
70-30 in favour of minority so far as I can tell, in fact Sturgeon seems positively enthusiastic about propping up Ed.
We ourselves won't take their seats meaning the bar for any Gov't is 323 seats, not 326, which could come into play.0 -
Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 1h1 hour ago
When I said we needed better English in our #NHS, I was attacked no end. Now the establishment suddenly backs us: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930647/Every-foreign-recruit-NHS-English-test-Ministers-set-vote-law-change-weeks.html …
exlab @exlabourite 25m25 minutes ago
@Nigel_Farage once again proving UKIP is ahead of the game... Time and time again, common sense prevails.0 -
Sign of the times: coroner rules an 8 year old boy in Pembrokeshire died of scurvy....0
-
David Coburn MEP @DavidCoburnUKip 6h6 hours ago
Greek Govt start to roll back Troika privatisation plans - http://www.cityam.com/208232/greeks-eye-new-deal-markets-tumble …
David Coburn MEP @DavidCoburnUKip 6h6 hours ago
Greek Govt threatens to veto Russian sanctions - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4337488.ece …0 -
The Conservatives need 300+ seats, I think, to form the next Government. That looks a little more likely than it did a fortnight ago but it still doesn't look particularly likely to me.Pulpstar said:
Yes, I got on at 7-1, have chased it up at 5s - but if the Labour vote share decreases between here and the election, the Conservatives could well have a minority Gov't tooantifrank said:
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
So far as I can tell the following have been ruled out/in
DUP/UKIP ruled out coalition and seem to be working as a block - I think they would back up a Con minority.
Lib Dems have ruled out coalition with UKIP
SNP have ruled out coalition with Conservatives, or indeed minority support
SNP seem to be hinting at minority Labour support, but haven't completely ruled out coalition.
70-30 in favour of minority so far as I can tell, in fact Sturgeon seems positively enthusiastic about propping up Ed.
We ourselves won't take their seats meaning the bar for any Gov't is 323 seats, not 326, which could come into play.0 -
re minority government - would be confidence voted down after the first budget without some semi formal arrangement.Pulpstar said:
Not sure I like 2 elections as a bet to be honest, chances are there will be some sort of arrangement that will probably last more than a year I think, also the Fixed term parliament act needs to be overturned, and whoever is holding power at the time may not want to rock that particular boat.foxinsoxuk said:
I agree. After the experience of the LDs in coalition no other party will be keen.Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
2 elections this year also good value for much the same reasons.
Pork barrels all round.
0 -
I agree with that. For an early second election to happen, it's not sufficient that the government should be unstable, lurching from crisis to crisis, and at the mercy of rebellions and pork-barrelling Nats. It also requires a majority of MPs to agree that they want an election at that particular time. Since they're all be jostling for position in the hope of maximising their own party's performance in any election, it follows that they are unlikely to come together to pull the plug - if one lot think now is a good time for an election, almost by definition another lot will think it's not a good time.Pulpstar said:Not sure I like 2 elections as a bet to be honest, chances are there will be some sort of arrangement that will probably last more than a year I think, also the Fixed term parliament act needs to be overturned, and whoever is holding power at the time may not want to rock that particular boat.
The one mechanism which used to make early elections in certain circumstances likely - the PM's personal power to stroll up to Buck House and ask for a dissolution - has been taken away by the Fixed Term Act.
Be afraid. We could be very, very badly governed for several years.0 -
Sure - but 11-2 I think is a fair reflection of that. I think 326 seats is ethereal.antifrank said:
The Conservatives need 300+ seats, I think, to form the next Government. That looks a little more likely than it did a fortnight ago but it still doesn't look particularly likely to me.Pulpstar said:
Yes, I got on at 7-1, have chased it up at 5s - but if the Labour vote share decreases between here and the election, the Conservatives could well have a minority Gov't tooantifrank said:
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
So far as I can tell the following have been ruled out/in
DUP/UKIP ruled out coalition and seem to be working as a block - I think they would back up a Con minority.
Lib Dems have ruled out coalition with UKIP
SNP have ruled out coalition with Conservatives, or indeed minority support
SNP seem to be hinting at minority Labour support, but haven't completely ruled out coalition.
70-30 in favour of minority so far as I can tell, in fact Sturgeon seems positively enthusiastic about propping up Ed.
We ourselves won't take their seats meaning the bar for any Gov't is 323 seats, not 326, which could come into play.0 -
It's not investigating a bit more closely. I'm fine with that. It's chucking out the presumption of innocence when investigating a crime, leading to police harassment of innocent parties. If there's no reasonable cause someone has done a crime, they should be left the hell alone by the authorities, not assumed to be guilty until they can justify otherwise.antifrank said:Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
The absurdity of this situation is demonstrated by the fact that it isn't applied to other crimes. The police don't investigate assault investigations by making people prove they didn't beat up the guy, and they don't investigate false rape accusations by making women prove that they're not making it up.
The reason for that, of course, is that 'rape' is the one crime that has been defined in such a way that it must virtually always be a male that is the accused. They would never dare to bring such a dynamic against a woman who got a man drunk and then had sex with him. The whole system has now become entirely biased against men, just as in domestic violence and child custody cases. You might expect such beliefs from the radical left, but such a mindset has now taken over the centre-left, and is now co-opting the centre-right, because the Cameroons are so pathetic in standing up for traditional liberties.0 -
Are the Blairites a bit thick? Surely any sense of disloyalty towards EdM before the election would kill off any remaining chances of a Blair clone taking over in the event of the Tories remaining in power. Yet you have Blairite journalists like John Rentoul (whom I presume we can trust) basically letting it be known that the Blairites are preparing for a civil war post election when the result is currently up for grabs. Madness. Should the worst actually happen I can't imagine the grassroots looking favourably on that.
Here's The Master himself defending Neil Kinnock's 1992 campaign vs Ken Livingstone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW9YQf6rRE8
It would appear his acolytes have a lot to learn.0 -
On topic, why pick 2005?
The equivalent figure for 2010 was 42, and should the LibDems be smashed English electoral bias would fall further.
Factor in the Scottish dimension, and overall electoral bias could disappear completely in 2015.
Now that IS worthy of a thread...
0 -
This week's cover: Can the bishops freeze out Farage? @edwest on the Catholic hierarchy's struggle with @UKIP pic.twitter.com/j4UD7isF9S
— The Catholic Herald (@CatholicHerald) January 28, 20150 -
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.Socrates said:
My concern is that with more of these cases coming to court, judges come under pressure to not be a judge that "fails to convict rapists". Ched Evans is clearly a dirty scumbag, but he was sent to jail for five years on the basis that his sexual partner was too drunk to consent, even though there wasn't any medical evidence demonstrating her drunkenness, and she was sober enough to consent with the guy immediately before.Sean_F said:
My concern would be that there'd be pressure on prosecutors to bring weak cases, which then fall apart in court, which does no one any favours.MaxPB said:
My issue is that the new guidance will be coupled with plea bargains by the police/CPS and a lot of people innocent people will end up being convinced into pleading guilty to avoid a court case which they will be told they will lose under the new rules. I trust neither the police nor the CPS.Flockers_pb said:MaxPB/Socrates,
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.
The biggest issue I have though is that this guidance is clearly aimed at increasing the conviction rate, which means it is about the numbers/targets rather than justice. A justice model based on conviction rate targets will lead to innocent people being incarcerated or on the sexual offences register.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!0 -
@Rodcrosby Scotland so far as I can tell will have a significant effect on electoral bias - hence
Lay:
Lab fewer votes Lab more seats
3.901 £71.31
£206.84
This move to balance up my vote/seat book in Betfair recently.
0 -
Not sure what price "ethereal" is, but I'll take 20/1 if you're offering. Con Minority should be fav now - they'll need about 290 for that, I reckon.Pulpstar said:
Sure - but 11-2 I think is a fair reflection of that. I think 326 seats is ethereal.antifrank said:
The Conservatives need 300+ seats, I think, to form the next Government. That looks a little more likely than it did a fortnight ago but it still doesn't look particularly likely to me.Pulpstar said:
Yes, I got on at 7-1, have chased it up at 5s - but if the Labour vote share decreases between here and the election, the Conservatives could well have a minority Gov't tooantifrank said:
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
So far as I can tell the following have been ruled out/in
DUP/UKIP ruled out coalition and seem to be working as a block - I think they would back up a Con minority.
Lib Dems have ruled out coalition with UKIP
SNP have ruled out coalition with Conservatives, or indeed minority support
SNP seem to be hinting at minority Labour support, but haven't completely ruled out coalition.
70-30 in favour of minority so far as I can tell, in fact Sturgeon seems positively enthusiastic about propping up Ed.
We ourselves won't take their seats meaning the bar for any Gov't is 323 seats, not 326, which could come into play.0 -
There is no chucking out the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a matter for the courts, not the police or the CPS.Socrates said:
It's not investigating a bit more closely. I'm fine with that. It's chucking out the presumption of innocence when investigating a crime, leading to police harassment of innocent parties. If there's no reasonable cause someone has done a crime, they should be left the hell alone by the authorities, not assumed to be guilty until they can justify otherwise.antifrank said:Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
The absurdity of this situation is demonstrated by the fact that it isn't applied to other crimes. The police don't investigate assault investigations by making people prove they didn't beat up the guy, and they don't investigate false rape accusations by making women prove that they're not making it up.
The reason for that, of course, is that 'rape' is the one crime that has been defined in such a way that it must virtually always be a male that is the accused. They would never dare to bring such a dynamic against a woman who got a man drunk and then had sex with him. The whole system has now become entirely biased against men, just as in domestic violence and child custody cases. You might expect such beliefs from the radical left, but such a mindset has now taken over the centre-left, and is now co-opting the centre-right, because the Cameroons are so pathetic in standing up for traditional liberties.
The police will investigate many things very carefully where it is not at all clear whether a crime has been committed - curious financial transactions, for example.
I'm very happy that the government seems to want to protect women and to make men think more carefully about their actions. You might regard it as radical left to make more effort to ensure that women are not being raped. Personally, it seems like common sense to me.0 -
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!0 -
Going to have to back that 5/1 lab minority to cover the two SNP coaltion betsantifrank said:
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
The likely hood of anyone going into coalition w conservatives seems v small to me, so maybe you're right in backing them as a minority too0 -
On topic, NumberCruncher's article here is relevant: http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2014/12/the-skew-aka-electoral-bias-which-party.html/3/0
-
10 years of Milliband, Kippers whining.Richard_Nabavi said:
I agree with that. For an early second election to happen, it's not sufficient that the government should be unstable, lurching from crisis to crisis, and at the mercy of rebellions and pork-barrelling Nats. It also requires a majority of MPs to agree that they want an election at that particular time. Since they're all be jostling for position in the hope of maximising their own party's performance in any election, it follows that they are unlikely to come together to pull the plug - if one lot think now is a good time for an election, almost by definition another lot will think it's not a good time.Pulpstar said:Not sure I like 2 elections as a bet to be honest, chances are there will be some sort of arrangement that will probably last more than a year I think, also the Fixed term parliament act needs to be overturned, and whoever is holding power at the time may not want to rock that particular boat.
The one mechanism which used to make early elections in certain circumstances likely - the PM's personal power to stroll up to Buck House and ask for a dissolution - has been taken away by the Fixed Term Act.
Be afraid. We could be very, very badly governed for several years.0 -
On issue after issue, the Conservative party seems to prefer the centre-left position to the centre-right position. The more votes they get, the more free they are to do this. The only way to get actual centre-right governance is to support UKIP so the Tories feel under pressure.MikeK said:Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 1h1 hour ago
When I said we needed better English in our #NHS, I was attacked no end. Now the establishment suddenly backs us: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930647/Every-foreign-recruit-NHS-English-test-Ministers-set-vote-law-change-weeks.html …
exlab @exlabourite 25m25 minutes ago
@Nigel_Farage once again proving UKIP is ahead of the game... Time and time again, common sense prevails.0 -
Neil Kinnock still isn't done with his career of service to the Conservative Party.Socrates said:Prescott and Kinnock. What a pair of political jokes to be backing your corner.
0 -
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."0 -
Scotland too.Tissue_Price said:On topic, NumberCruncher's article here is relevant: http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2014/12/the-skew-aka-electoral-bias-which-party.html/3/
0 -
You think putting Miliband into No 10 will get right-wing governance?Socrates said:On issue after issue, the Conservative party seems to prefer the centre-left position to the centre-right position. The more votes they get, the more free they are to do this. The only way to get actual centre-right governance is to support UKIP so the Tories feel under pressure.
It's a view, I suppose.0 -
You seem to have a head start on them. Since the leftie kippers were last in, they will probably be first out, putting pressure on the kippers probably helps EdM.TheWatcher said:
10 years of Milliband, Kippers whining.Richard_Nabavi said:
I agree with that. For an early second election to happen, it's not sufficient that the government should be unstable, lurching from crisis to crisis, and at the mercy of rebellions and pork-barrelling Nats. It also requires a majority of MPs to agree that they want an election at that particular time. Since they're all be jostling for position in the hope of maximising their own party's performance in any election, it follows that they are unlikely to come together to pull the plug - if one lot think now is a good time for an election, almost by definition another lot will think it's not a good time.Pulpstar said:Not sure I like 2 elections as a bet to be honest, chances are there will be some sort of arrangement that will probably last more than a year I think, also the Fixed term parliament act needs to be overturned, and whoever is holding power at the time may not want to rock that particular boat.
The one mechanism which used to make early elections in certain circumstances likely - the PM's personal power to stroll up to Buck House and ask for a dissolution - has been taken away by the Fixed Term Act.
Be afraid. We could be very, very badly governed for several years.0 -
Okay, but why not the same attitude towards force marriages, grooming in northern cities, FGM? I'm afraid the same standards haven't been applied to equally grave crimes in recent years.antifrank said:
There is no chucking out the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a matter for the courts, not the police or the CPS.Socrates said:
It's not investigating a bit more closely. I'm fine with that. It's chucking out the presumption of innocence when investigating a crime, leading to police harassment of innocent parties. If there's no reasonable cause someone has done a crime, they should be left the hell alone by the authorities, not assumed to be guilty until they can justify otherwise.antifrank said:Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
The absurdity of this situation is demonstrated by the fact that it isn't applied to other crimes. The police don't investigate assault investigations by making people prove they didn't beat up the guy, and they don't investigate false rape accusations by making women prove that they're not making it up.
The reason for that, of course, is that 'rape' is the one crime that has been defined in such a way that it must virtually always be a male that is the accused. They would never dare to bring such a dynamic against a woman who got a man drunk and then had sex with him. The whole system has now become entirely biased against men, just as in domestic violence and child custody cases. You might expect such beliefs from the radical left, but such a mindset has now taken over the centre-left, and is now co-opting the centre-right, because the Cameroons are so pathetic in standing up for traditional liberties.
The police will investigate many things very carefully where it is not at all clear whether a crime has been committed - curious financial transactions, for example.
I'm very happy that the government seems to want to protect women and to make men think more carefully about their actions. You might regard it as radical left to make more effort to ensure that women are not being raped. Personally, it seems like common sense to me.0 -
There's cases of ricketts too. WTF? There's zero excuse for either.MarqueeMark said:
Sign of the times: coroner rules an 8 year old boy in Pembrokeshire died of scurvy....
0 -
Exactly.Tissue_Price said:On topic, NumberCruncher's article here is relevant: http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2014/12/the-skew-aka-electoral-bias-which-party.html/3/
0 -
The Conservatives on here slaughtered Farage for this, I wouldn't expect any fessing up though, there will probably be an extremely small and insignificant difference in the Tory announcement which will be portrayed as substantially different to what Farage saidMikeK said:Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 1h1 hour ago
When I said we needed better English in our #NHS, I was attacked no end. Now the establishment suddenly backs us: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930647/Every-foreign-recruit-NHS-English-test-Ministers-set-vote-law-change-weeks.html …
exlab @exlabourite 25m25 minutes ago
@Nigel_Farage once again proving UKIP is ahead of the game... Time and time again, common sense prevails.
Yes Minister politics0 -
I've read it. So, please tell me, what's the evidence that Evans was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Feel free to quote from your link.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."0 -
That's an excellent example of whataboutery.AndyJS said:
Okay, but why not the same attitude towards force marriages, grooming in northern cities, FGM? I'm afraid the same standards haven't been applied to equally grave crimes in recent years.
Should those things be investigated vigorously too? Yes they should. Should the fact that they have not been investigated as vigorously as they should mean that possible rapes now should not be investigated either? No of course it doesn't.0 -
I actually think long term it will have that effect.. we have left wing governance now already, but the partisan Tories don't mind as long as its called Conservative and the rosettes are blueRichard_Nabavi said:
You think putting Miliband into No 10 will get right-wing governance?Socrates said:On issue after issue, the Conservative party seems to prefer the centre-left position to the centre-right position. The more votes they get, the more free they are to do this. The only way to get actual centre-right governance is to support UKIP so the Tories feel under pressure.
It's a view, I suppose.0 -
I think they could do it on 293-294 - just.antifrank said:
The Conservatives need 300+ seats, I think, to form the next Government. That looks a little more likely than it did a fortnight ago but it still doesn't look particularly likely to me.Pulpstar said:
Yes, I got on at 7-1, have chased it up at 5s - but if the Labour vote share decreases between here and the election, the Conservatives could well have a minority Gov't tooantifrank said:
Labour minority as tipped by me some time ago:Pulpstar said:I reckon both Conservative minority @ 11-2 (Hills, Paddy Power) and Labour Minority (Hills, 5-1) are both excellent bets.
If I was forced to pick I'd go for the Labour Minority, but I'm on both as a book balancing exercise.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html
/self-promotion.
I still think this is good value at 5/1, though some of my seat number assumptions look out of date.
So far as I can tell the following have been ruled out/in
DUP/UKIP ruled out coalition and seem to be working as a block - I think they would back up a Con minority.
Lib Dems have ruled out coalition with UKIP
SNP have ruled out coalition with Conservatives, or indeed minority support
SNP seem to be hinting at minority Labour support, but haven't completely ruled out coalition.
70-30 in favour of minority so far as I can tell, in fact Sturgeon seems positively enthusiastic about propping up Ed.
We ourselves won't take their seats meaning the bar for any Gov't is 323 seats, not 326, which could come into play.
Two tests:
(1) do Conservative seats outnumber Labour + Lib Dem combined? If so, Cameron can stay in office in a minority until he's brought down in a vote of confidence, which would require other minor parties to also unite against him - in practice the SNP. That could take months. A result of Labour 262 and Lib Dem 30, but Conservatives on 293, would enable that.
(2) do Conservative seats + Lib Dem seats also provide an effective overall majority? I.e. Sum to 323 seats or greater? If the Tories were on 293 and the Lib Dems on 30, a confidence & supply or 2nd coalition would be the only stable option. Particularly if the Lib Dem + Labour total was less than the Tory.
The government could literally depend on the colour of as few as 3-4 seats.0 -
Becoming older than 40 made me entirely invisible. It's a most peculiar experience. A lifetime of being wolf-whistled - and then zip.
Most disconcerting!Financier said:@Plato
Just catching up with the thread.
If you describe yourself as "ancient", then many of the PBers on here this morning must be past mummification - i.e beyond all hope.0 -
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."0 -
isam said:
The Conservatives on here slaughtered Farage for this, I wouldn't expect any fessing up though, there will probably be an extremely small and insignificant difference in the Tory announcement which will be portrayed as substantially different to what Farage saidMikeK said:Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 1h1 hour ago
When I said we needed better English in our #NHS, I was attacked no end. Now the establishment suddenly backs us: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930647/Every-foreign-recruit-NHS-English-test-Ministers-set-vote-law-change-weeks.html …
exlab @exlabourite 25m25 minutes ago
@Nigel_Farage once again proving UKIP is ahead of the game... Time and time again, common sense prevails.
Yes Minister politics
A number of people (myself included) thought it was a good idea.
However it seems the problem was dealing with the EU rules (which has been done), rather than waiting for Mr Farage to come up with it.
I suspect Farage only said it to highlight EU rules and therefore BOO, but in this case it has been dealt with anyway, so his plan has been shot.
0 -
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."0 -
In the interests of research, the things some journalists have to do.
Louis Emanuel @louisjemanuel · 9m 9 minutes ago
Went to the 'UK's premier dogging site' last night with a Tory councillor. Tune in tomorrow to find out what happened...0 -
Scotland may well prove unbiased this time, in red-blue terms. 24% and 3 seats vs 16% and 2Pulpstar said:
Scotland too.Tissue_Price said:On topic, NumberCruncher's article here is relevant: http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2014/12/the-skew-aka-electoral-bias-which-party.html/3/
0 -
The sort of feminists I like are the ones who don't hate men like Louise Mensch. Incidentally I thought her Tweets against the Saudi grovelling were fantastic.0
-
I'd love to be called for jury service, though I cohabit with someone in the legal profession so that may be why I wouldn't.antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
Having an essentially contrarian outlook on life I could well see myself being the 1 in an 11-1 verdict.
The comments on this site often find me bringing out my red and yellow bats, whereas the site headers make me sometimes pitch for the blues.
It's also struck me that I'm on No Overall Majority now both by proxy and directly for quite a bit...0 -
Sounds like the jury were confused, and were already applying the "prove you got consent" nonsense.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."0 -
Clearly my argument is with the specific issue of presumption of guilt when investigating crimes, which is an issue for investigations as well as the courts.antifrank said:
There is no chucking out the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a matter for the courts, not the police or the CPS.
The police will investigate many things very carefully where it is not at all clear whether a crime has been committed - curious financial transactions, for example.
I'm very happy that the government seems to want to protect women and to make men think more carefully about their actions. You might regard it as radical left to make more effort to ensure that women are not being raped. Personally, it seems like common sense to me.
But then you change that issue to claim I think it is radical to want to "make more effort to ensure that women are not being raped." This is exactly the sort of delegitimising of alternative viewpoints mentioned earlier. You deliberately mischaracterise an opponent's arguments to make them seem anti-woman. What a nasty little man you are.0 -
Lawyers can be called for jury service. Indeed, not so long ago, a judge did jury service.Pulpstar said:
I'd love to be called for jury service, though I cohabit with someone in the legal profession so that may be why I wouldn't.antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
Having an essentially contrarian outlook on life I could well see myself being the 1 in an 11-1 verdict.0 -
20cm of snow in Chesterfield and still snowing heavy0
-
Excellent point.antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
The jury were able to assess the witnesses and the accused, their demeanour and manner in a way that we armchair judges were not.
All twelve jurists drawn from all walks of life determined the issue without dissent.
0 -
Me neither.
I've pretty unPC views about fellow females and their use of sex to manipulate men. I find the naivety of many about how good we are at it, surprising. The term femme fatale isn't by accident.
Stories of seduced school teachers and others by teenage minxes doesn't outrage me at all - they're experts at it and their victims flattered into making a huge career ending mistake.
I've a talent for it that I don't use and wish I didn't possess. It's a curse that leaks out unconsciously and I have to damp down lest I give the wrong impression. Others with fewer scruples will capitalise on it - and you don't need to look like Helen of Troy either.
So TBH, I have little sympathy with those who claim all females are helpless victims - we aren't. We're snakes too, who play a subversive game more often than some would like to believe.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."0 -
I think I'll install a video camera in my boudoir.
Then if a woman makes a false allegation I'll be able to prove I had consent.
I'll even stick it on YouTube for all the world to see.
Oh, wait a minute, I'll get two years for that, won't I?
Heads the bitch wins, tails I lose...0 -
Well I know precisely what "Of good character" actually means, it means if someone is on charge for rape they could still be a thief, burglar and vandal - just means they've never been convicted of a sexual offence. The legal definition is laughably narrow, whereas it is made to sound like they're a "good egg" so I'd mentally dismiss it straight off the bat.antifrank said:
Lawyers can be called for jury service. Indeed, not so long ago, a judge did jury service.Pulpstar said:
I'd love to be called for jury service, though I cohabit with someone in the legal profession so that may be why I wouldn't.antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
Having an essentially contrarian outlook on life I could well see myself being the 1 in an 11-1 verdict.
If I was on trial, I'd fucking love it, love it I say if I had 12 lawyers on my bench, the chance of getting convicted would be almost nil I'd have thought.0 -
If the gap between the parties had been rounded – rather than the party shares themselves – this week’s YouGov results would have been shown as
Tues – Con +2%
Weds -Con +1%
Thurs – Lab +1%
0 -
Indeed 12-0 and Evans is a convicted rapist unless he overturns the decisionJackW said:
Excellent point.antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
The jury were able to assess the witnesses and the accused, their demeanour and manner in a way that we armchair judges were not.
All twelve jurists drawn from all walks of life determined the issue without dissent.
0 -
OTOH I wouldn't fancy having 12 coppers on the bench. Unless I was prosecuting.0
-
Has Alan Duncan been to Chesterfield these past few days ?bigjohnowls said:20cm of snow in Chesterfield and still snowing heavy
0 -
Does anyone know the person recently who gave Con Seats, Con votes at 2.96 on Betfair recently, and if so can you encourage them to get back betting ?0
-
You think lay persons judging "demeanour" and "manner" are acceptable grounds to prove something "beyond reasonable doubt"?JackW said:<
Excellent point.
The jury were able to assess the witnesses and the accused, their demeanour and manner in a way that we armchair judges were not.
All twelve jurists drawn from all walks of life determined the issue without dissent.
People should only be sent to prison if there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That means things like indisputable medical evidence, multiple witnesses, forensic evidence etc. In the Ched Evans case, there were no witnesses that said she was too drunk to consent, the complainant herself claimed to have no memory of the incident, and she had no alcohol in her system around midday the next day. Oh, and she made Tweets saying she "won big" and there's a video of her capably walking into the hotel and later collecting a pizza.0 -
I love it when morons on the internet decide to play Perry Mason. It wastes their time and saves the rest of us having to deal with their other Neanderthal views.Socrates said:
This is an argument that effectively says "we should never question the results of court cases". Would you apply a similar logic to the OJ Simpson trial?antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
The website for the defence has also put up the video of the alleged rape victim entering the hotel. Does she seem too paralytically drunk to give consent to you?
http://chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself
There is a process for hearing appeals against convictions based on new evidence. That is being followed through the courts.
It does not comprise putting up one-sided websites that seek to trash the reputations of complainants.0 -
What a disgraceful attitude to women.RodCrosby said:I think I'll install a video camera in my boudoir.
Then if a woman makes a false allegation I'll be able to prove I had consent.
I'll even stick it on YouTube for all the world to see.
Oh, wait a minute, I'll get two years for that, won't I?
Heads the bitch wins, tails I lose...0 -
You'd deserve two years unless you had her consent to YouTube it.RodCrosby said:I think I'll install a video camera in my boudoir.
Then if a woman makes a false allegation I'll be able to prove I had consent.
I'll even stick it on YouTube for all the world to see.
Oh, wait a minute, I'll get two years for that, won't I?
Heads the bitch wins, tails I lose...
Consent is the issue.
0 -
Just finished Jury Service, Pulpstar. It left me with mixed feelings, but on the whole I'd say it's a good system which generally gets it right.Pulpstar said:
I'd love to be called for jury service, though I cohabit with someone in the legal profession so that may be why I wouldn't.antifrank said:
The jury saw and heard the witnesses. We did not.Pulpstar said:
Reading through that - no way on God's green earth I could have found Evans guilty.antifrank said:
I suggest that you read the Court of Appeal judgment from 2012 where they considered whether the conviction was unsafe. The judgment goes into it in grim detail:Socrates said:
But in reality the judge controls the court, can include and exclude evidence, and heavily influences juries in the way they vote. In the Evans case I have mentioned, can anyone really explain what the evidence was that meant he was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"? I've brought it up several times and despite being a high-profile case, no-one has been able to argue this to me.OldKingCole said:
I thought juries convicted; judges run the court, as far as the law is concerned, including advising the jury on what the law says, and how it’s currently interpreted. The judge sums up the evidence and can, in doing so, indicate that he or she regards the prosecution or the defence as having, or not having, made their case.
However, it’s still open to the jury to return a “perverse” verdict!
The judge then gets to pass sentence, assuming the verdict was guilty!
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
The key sentence, however, is fairly early on:
"This was a classic case for decision by the jury."
Having an essentially contrarian outlook on life I could well see myself being the 1 in an 11-1 verdict.
The comments on this site often find me bringing out my red and yellow bats, whereas the site headers make me sometimes pitch for the blues.
It's also struck me that I'm on No Overall Majority now both by proxy and directly for quite a bit...
I'm on NOM in the same way as you, and I'm Mr Relaxed from Relaxedtown. Betfair makes it a 3/10 chance. I reckon 1/10 would be more like it.0 -
I really don't know what a *feminist* is meant to be - but I like Louise Mensch. She's sassy and not scared to be controversial.
I suspect a lot of her detractors are jealous of her rock-star lifestyle and looks.AndyJS said:The sort of feminists I like are the ones who don't hate men like Louise Mensch. Incidentally I thought her Tweets against the Saudi grovelling were fantastic.
0 -
Ched has fresh evidence apparently. So we shall see...
Anyway I won't clog up the site any further with talk about Mr Evans.0 -
You'll notice I am talking about women who make false allegations.bigjohnowls said:
What a disgraceful attitude to women.RodCrosby said:I think I'll install a video camera in my boudoir.
Then if a woman makes a false allegation I'll be able to prove I had consent.
I'll even stick it on YouTube for all the world to see.
Oh, wait a minute, I'll get two years for that, won't I?
Heads the bitch wins, tails I lose...0 -
Socrates you were told last week not to discuss the Ched Evans case.
Also everybody else, please don't link to the Ched Evans website, as that website has been referred to the Attorney General for contempt of court action for potentially identifying the victim.0
