Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
I heard a Labour bod "explaining" it this morning, and it really sounds like they started from the position of it might raise a few quid, but hadn't gotten round to thinking about how to do it in practice, and whether or not it would be cost effective.
Obviously in the long run we need to adopt telematics based road charging.
I think that's OK. Right now they're establishing the principle of taxing EVs. Given it's an inevitability, the earlier they establish n the principle the easier the transition will be. They have two and a half years to sort out the details, which don't seem unsolvable.
Macron introduces voluntary national service for 18 to 19 year olds
Sunak tried this without success
Good or bad idea ?
I think it’s a very good idea. If each year you have a new cohort of citizens who are trained to shoot and understand basic infantry skills (they are aiming for 50,000 per year by 2035) then if the balloon goes up then you have a large number of people to call on with the need for refreshers and upped fitness rather than having to suddenly train a few hundred thousand in short order from scratch.
It also frees up thousands of professional troops from other duties for better training and deployments. So when you go to France for a few years there has been a visual presence of troops at certain areas of cities and so on, these roles can be taken on by the volunteers which will allow regulars better use of their time.
I actually tried to join the TA here earlier this year but am too old but I think this 10 month voluntary option fills a gap between the TA and regular forces. Also might have a beneficial effect of people trying it without the regular commitment and finding it’s the life for them and so improving recruiting.
If the use of a jury rather than specialists really is the best way to go about things, perhaps we should introduce them in other fields too. For example, doctors could be required to persuade a jury of the suitability or otherwise of a particular treatment regime, and the dimensioning of bridges could also be determined by random folk, with engineers taking an advisory role.
It's a fair point Feersum, even if you do stretch it to extremes. I'm often dismayed that knowing something about a subject can disqualify you from jury membership on a related topic. Many fraud trials stretch the comprehension of non-specialist juries, for example, as do many involving shady business practice.
I'm sure the Maxwell brothers would not have got off if the jury had understood more about company law.
Yes, the process of trying to extract a meaningful decision on a complex topic from a group a laypeople with little to no understanding of the field seems completely absurd to me.
In some cases the facts are so complex that it is unrealistic to expect a jury to do it. A lot of fraud cases are like that. It's also arguable that cases like Letby are so complex that a decision on guilt or innocence requires expert assessment alongside lay opinion, and also would benefit from a reasoned, and appealable, judgment.
This, together with your previous post, would imply that juries should only be used to determine the facts of the case when the case is relatively straightforward. But if the facts are straightforward, why would you need a jury to determine them?
Once a fact, intrinsically simple (I was there/I wasn't there; he hit me/he didn't hit me) is in dispute it has to be determined. That's what juries do in that small % of cases which go to them. Magistrates do the rest.
Yes, I think some cases are too complex for juries. I also think there are cases where the jury or some jurors will feel the weight of intimidation. I don't think there are simple answers. I have always liked the jury system. It needs looking at, but at root the greater problem by far is trying to do stuff on the cheap.
Presumably the main argument in support of juries being as large as twelve, aside from simply history and precedent, is that you need a large enough group of people as a protection against both bias and being nobbled? From a cost and effectiveness point of view you'd think half as many people would work better, as anyone who has served on a very large council committee already knows.
There's a bit of history. Until about 50-60 years ago jurors were almost all middle class and propertied. Unanimity was required. When this changed majority verdicts were brought in, as the wrong sort - working class, benefit junkies, criminal associates and indeed criminals - were among the number.
So now, there is a statistical thing going on. Among a random 12, say three might be too dim too follow anything, two might be heavily biased against one side or the other (in the olden days there was pretty universal bias against anyone in the dock). So if you had say 6, or 7 you are quite often going to get a completely lousy jury due to 'small sampling'.
(As to committees of the competent: a different question. Often the best number is one. The next best number about 5 or 6, carefully chosen by the one.)
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
Oh dear, where is nurse? People in £2mn houses are not 'middle England'. Perhaps he needs to widen his circle of acquaintances. I mean, I am minted and even I don't live in a £2mn house.
Yes I oppose the tax but saying it affects Middle England to increase taxes on £2 million plus houses is only true if Middle England is restricted to Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hampstead, Golders Green, Oxshott, Alderly Edge and Chigwell High Road
We have a £3 million sea front home being built within 400 yards and several others nearby
However, Wales has its own review due to be implemented in 2028
Why do you need so many houses, Big G?
It's the way I tell them
I have one home which my wife and I bought in 1976 and is the family home
The 3 million beach front home is near but outrageously priced and unlikely to achieve that figure
Won't it be just typical if the publicity leads to lots of new salary sacrifice schemes being set up resulting in a substantial loss of tax revenue - at least up until April 2029.
How anyone can view yesterday as a success for Labour is beyond me. I mean I suppose at least it didn’t cause the money markets to go crazy which isn’t a failure, but there is absolutely no way the government is winning the optics of this budget.
They’ve just got to hope the economy improves a bit so they can push back some of these tax rises before they kick in, which I think is the gamble.
If the use of a jury rather than specialists really is the best way to go about things, perhaps we should introduce them in other fields too. For example, doctors could be required to persuade a jury of the suitability or otherwise of a particular treatment regime, and the dimensioning of bridges could also be determined by random folk, with engineers taking an advisory role.
It's a fair point Feersum, even if you do stretch it to extremes. I'm often dismayed that knowing something about a subject can disqualify you from jury membership on a related topic. Many fraud trials stretch the comprehension of non-specialist juries, for example, as do many involving shady business practice.
I'm sure the Maxwell brothers would not have got off if the jury had understood more about company law.
Yes, the process of trying to extract a meaningful decision on a complex topic from a group a laypeople with little to no understanding of the field seems completely absurd to me.
In some cases the facts are so complex that it is unrealistic to expect a jury to do it. A lot of fraud cases are like that. It's also arguable that cases like Letby are so complex that a decision on guilt or innocence requires expert assessment alongside lay opinion, and also would benefit from a reasoned, and appealable, judgment.
This, together with your previous post, would imply that juries should only be used to determine the facts of the case when the case is relatively straightforward. But if the facts are straightforward, why would you need a jury to determine them?
Once a fact, intrinsically simple (I was there/I wasn't there; he hit me/he didn't hit me) is in dispute it has to be determined. That's what juries do in that small % of cases which go to them. Magistrates do the rest.
Yes, I think some cases are too complex for juries. I also think there are cases where the jury or some jurors will feel the weight of intimidation. I don't think there are simple answers. I have always liked the jury system. It needs looking at, but at root the greater problem by far is trying to do stuff on the cheap.
Presumably the main argument in support of juries being as large as twelve, aside from simply history and precedent, is that you need a large enough group of people as a protection against both bias and being nobbled? From a cost and effectiveness point of view you'd think half as many people would work better, as anyone who has served on a very large council committee already knows.
There's a bit of history. Until about 50-60 years ago jurors were almost all middle class and propertied. Unanimity was required. When this changed majority verdicts were brought in, as the wrong sort - working class, benefit junkies, criminal associates and indeed criminals - were among the number.
So now, there is a statistical thing going on. Among a random 12, say three might be too dim too follow anything, two might be heavily biased against one side or the other (in the olden days there was pretty universal bias against anyone in the dock). So if you had say 6, or 7 you are quite often going to get a completely lousy jury due to 'small sampling'.
(As to committees of the competent: a different question. Often the best number is one. The next best number about 5 or 6, carefully chosen by the one.)
Anyone who's watched any series of Traitors will clearly see how vulnerable are the gullible majority to the ridiculous logic of an influential group member. Then the herd mentality kicks in because everyone likes to be liked.
If the use of a jury rather than specialists really is the best way to go about things, perhaps we should introduce them in other fields too. For example, doctors could be required to persuade a jury of the suitability or otherwise of a particular treatment regime, and the dimensioning of bridges could also be determined by random folk, with engineers taking an advisory role.
It's a fair point Feersum, even if you do stretch it to extremes. I'm often dismayed that knowing something about a subject can disqualify you from jury membership on a related topic. Many fraud trials stretch the comprehension of non-specialist juries, for example, as do many involving shady business practice.
I'm sure the Maxwell brothers would not have got off if the jury had understood more about company law.
Yes, the process of trying to extract a meaningful decision on a complex topic from a group a laypeople with little to no understanding of the field seems completely absurd to me.
In some cases the facts are so complex that it is unrealistic to expect a jury to do it. A lot of fraud cases are like that. It's also arguable that cases like Letby are so complex that a decision on guilt or innocence requires expert assessment alongside lay opinion, and also would benefit from a reasoned, and appealable, judgment.
This, together with your previous post, would imply that juries should only be used to determine the facts of the case when the case is relatively straightforward. But if the facts are straightforward, why would you need a jury to determine them?
Once a fact, intrinsically simple (I was there/I wasn't there; he hit me/he didn't hit me) is in dispute it has to be determined. That's what juries do in that small % of cases which go to them. Magistrates do the rest.
Yes, I think some cases are too complex for juries. I also think there are cases where the jury or some jurors will feel the weight of intimidation. I don't think there are simple answers. I have always liked the jury system. It needs looking at, but at root the greater problem by far is trying to do stuff on the cheap.
Presumably the main argument in support of juries being as large as twelve, aside from simply history and precedent, is that you need a large enough group of people as a protection against both bias and being nobbled? From a cost and effectiveness point of view you'd think half as many people would work better, as anyone who has served on a very large council committee already knows.
There's a bit of history. Until about 50-60 years ago jurors were almost all middle class and propertied. Unanimity was required. When this changed majority verdicts were brought in, as the wrong sort - working class, benefit junkies, criminal associates and indeed criminals - were among the number.
So now, there is a statistical thing going on. Among a random 12, say three might be too dim too follow anything, two might be heavily biased against one side or the other (in the olden days there was pretty universal bias against anyone in the dock). So if you had say 6, or 7 you are quite often going to get a completely lousy jury due to 'small sampling'.
(As to committees of the competent: a different question. Often the best number is one. The next best number about 5 or 6, carefully chosen by the one.)
Anyone who's watched any series of Traitors will clearly see how vulnerable are the gullible majority to the ridiculous logic of an influential group member. Then the herd mentality kicks in because everyone likes to be liked.
I think Traitors is a bad analogue for a jury, because in the Traitors if you don't join in the finger-pointing at someone else, there's a big risk of the finger coming round to be pointed at you.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
You have lefty friends pining for a return to the Tories? They need a talking to. Please send me their contacts.
Years ago, I saw the claim that the original Perry Mason TV show made it harder to get convictions in the US, because so many jurors had seen a defense attorney defeating a prosecutor, over and over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(1957_TV_series)
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
I listened to the first ten minutes or so and to be honest it's the longest I've ever listened to Badenoch speaking. It was certainly a combative speech but I was surprised at how nasty and personal it was. Is this her usual style? It was a turn off for me but maybe Tories will like it, they seem to be more into this kind of thing. She does risk coming across as what the young people call a "pick me" - a woman who seeks male approval by denigrating other women.
Would you have liked Kemi to be less combative, given that she was dealing with a woman and all?
I just don't like personal remarks or unkindness, regardless of who is speaking to whom.
I was surprised so many on here were excited by Kemi yesterday. They had a genuinely funny leader in Hague who had the whole House in stitches but it didn't make voters like him any more. If she'd had a great profound line -the holy grail of advertisers -which could carry beyond yesterday then it might have had an impact. I suppose it might make her own side like her a bit more if they think she did well
Hague was facing Blair and Brown in their prime when New Labour had a huge poll lead.
Kemi is facing Starmer and Reeves who are loathed by most voters now and Labour is polling barely half what New Labour were pre 2001
And Reform may implode before 2029.
Probably not likely but definitely a possibility.
Not sure about implode, but certainly I wouldn't be surprised to see them crack under pressure. Which would amount to the same thing. After all they have a long record of this in their various Farage inspired guises.
The thing about the possibility of Farage being a racist bully at school is that it seems so plausible.
F1: reminder for those who forgot (or didn't know), there's a maximum 25 lap stint in Qatar, so with 57 laps there'll be at least two stops. Sprint is 19 laps do not affected.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I think the case is that Juries are more likely to get it wrong than a sole judge, so your best chance if guilty is the jury trial, but the last thing you want is an error if you are not guilty.
Years ago, I saw the claim that the original Perry Mason TV show made it harder to get convictions in the US, because so many jurors had seen a defense attorney defeating a prosecutor, over and over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(1957_TV_series)
Sadly, that seems plausible.
So all a defense lawyer has to say is, "Objection your Honor. Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial." and ... job, done, the guy walks free.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
That's quite funny, CR, but it's a serious question and I should think there must have been some research done in this area, and also on the optimum size for a jury, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
I'm conflicted about the abolition of jury trials for medium level cases. I've no problem with most of the bizarre decisions .... the Colston statue, for example, although I did scratch my head over that of the Duchess of Edinburgh's outrider. It's always seemed to me that juries had, or should have, local knowledge which should lead them to a sensible confusion. In that connection I recall reading (I'm not THAT old) of the pre-WWII case of the Welsh Nationalists who set fire to a RAF base in Gwynedd, and the trial was moved to London because a local jury had disagreed, and the judge, and the State, very definitely wanted a conviction.
Jury trial dates back to ancient times; yes, but do we, in the 21st century get more 'accurate' results than, say, the Scandinavians, the French or the Germans? Who, as far as I know, rely on judges and assessors. (I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)
Do continental criminal lawyers get quite as combative as ours seem to, and are witnesses treated better or worse? Has anyone actually done any dispassionate work on this? Or are we simply seeing a knee-jerk response to what I hope is a short-term problem?
I'd understood that the continental legal system requires people to prove their innocence, rather than innocence being the initial presumption.
I would hope not. There must be a huge number of crimes that I could not prove I did not commit.
Most European systems have a non confrontational approach to trials (there is a proper name for that, that I can't remember). Anglosphere countries like the confrontational method.
Yes, and it seems to work perfectly well. The conviction (hah!) that you have to have a prosecution and a defence pitted against each other in order to determine guilt isn't the axiom that many seem to think it is. It's also possible, and in my view preferable, to determine guilt by carefully considering the facts of the case from a neutral standpoint, as is the case in many other countries.
The French police procedural TV series 'Spiral' is interesting from that respect, focusing as it does on the way the French system works and the interplay between the police and the judge during both the investigation into and prosecution for crime. It's very different from the way our system works, and from an inexpert view seems to offer both pros and cons as an alternative way to do things? In particular the judge appears to have an active, hands-on role from the moment the crime is committed, and not simply dropped in as the umpire if and when a case eventually comes to trial, as we do it.
Yes, that does sound interesting. In truth, I have little knowledge of the legal systems of the UK or of other countries. But it does seem to me to be strange to insist that our way of doing things is the only proper way to do it when there are obviously other ways that appear to work as least as fairly and effectively. It smacks of pure defensiveness: this is the way we've always done it, so this is the way we'll always do it.
It is interesting looking at how different places (that are also free developed societies) do things. As regards this country there are decent arguments IMO for and against the Leveson reforms re juries. What has very little merit, however, is to first run the CJS into the ground for lack of investment and then start bloviating about 'ancient liberties' and the Magna Carta when attempts are made to address the problem. Yes I'm looking at you the Conservative Party.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
You have lefty friends pining for a return to the Tories? They need a talking to. Please send me their contacts.
Being Lefty is relative to the observer, who sits in the sensible midzone between Trump and Mussolini.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
It's a question of fairness and increasing welfare by 16 billion whilst ever higher taxes on normal voters is, or should be, toxic
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
That's quite funny, CR, but it's a serious question and I should think there must have been some research done in this area, and also on the optimum size for a jury, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
I'm conflicted about the abolition of jury trials for medium level cases. I've no problem with most of the bizarre decisions .... the Colston statue, for example, although I did scratch my head over that of the Duchess of Edinburgh's outrider. It's always seemed to me that juries had, or should have, local knowledge which should lead them to a sensible confusion. In that connection I recall reading (I'm not THAT old) of the pre-WWII case of the Welsh Nationalists who set fire to a RAF base in Gwynedd, and the trial was moved to London because a local jury had disagreed, and the judge, and the State, very definitely wanted a conviction.
Jury trial dates back to ancient times; yes, but do we, in the 21st century get more 'accurate' results than, say, the Scandinavians, the French or the Germans? Who, as far as I know, rely on judges and assessors. (I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)
Do continental criminal lawyers get quite as combative as ours seem to, and are witnesses treated better or worse? Has anyone actually done any dispassionate work on this? Or are we simply seeing a knee-jerk response to what I hope is a short-term problem?
I'd understood that the continental legal system requires people to prove their innocence, rather than innocence being the initial presumption.
I would hope not. There must be a huge number of crimes that I could not prove I did not commit.
Most European systems have a non confrontational approach to trials (there is a proper name for that, that I can't remember). Anglosphere countries like the confrontational method.
Yes, and it seems to work perfectly well. The conviction (hah!) that you have to have a prosecution and a defence pitted against each other in order to determine guilt isn't the axiom that many seem to think it is. It's also possible, and in my view preferable, to determine guilt by carefully considering the facts of the case from a neutral standpoint, as is the case in many other countries.
The French police procedural TV series 'Spiral' is interesting from that respect, focusing as it does on the way the French system works and the interplay between the police and the judge during both the investigation into and prosecution for crime. It's very different from the way our system works, and from an inexpert view seems to offer both pros and cons as an alternative way to do things? In particular the judge appears to have an active, hands-on role from the moment the crime is committed, and not simply dropped in as the umpire if and when a case eventually comes to trial, as we do it.
Yes, that does sound interesting. In truth, I have little knowledge of the legal systems of the UK or of other countries. But it does seem to me to be strange to insist that our way of doing things is the only proper way to do it when there are obviously other ways that appear to work as least as fairly and effectively. It smacks of pure defensiveness: this is the way we've always done it, so this is the way we'll always do it.
It is interesting looking at how different places (that are also free developed societies) do things. As regards this country there are decent arguments IMO for and against the Leveson reforms re juries. What has very little merit, however, is to first run the CJS into the ground for lack of investment and then start bloviating about 'ancient liberties' and the Magna Carta when attempts are made to address the problem. Yes I'm looking at you the Conservative Party.
But apparently we have billions for digital ID, but no money to employ more Clerks of the Court to line everything up (including juries) for the courts?
Or is this an example of feast-or-famine government?
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Does he understand the pension change properly? It's a serious question given the misunderstandings prevalent.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Yes, I think people are now realising that welfare has become a lifestyle choice for too many people rather than a safety net to keep them going while they find work etc...
The Tories are saying they'd cut £23bn from welfare spending, I'd like to see what that specifically entails but I think it will be a very popular policy by the time we get to the election.
So almost none of the leaked and trailed measures actually went into the budget.
Everyone who was expecting an ‘exit tax’ and planning accordingly, will now carry on doing so in the expectation that will now happen next year instead.
A few did, like that absolutely insane mileage tax did.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
It's a question of fairness and increasing welfare by 16 billion whilst ever higher taxes on normal voters is, or should be, toxic
Much of that increased welfare is the Triple Lock.
Any party wanting to continue it at the next election is not getting my vote.
I love the way the right wing on here talk about "Lefty Friends". It's just the most transparently bollocks thing ever.
Don't tend to talk direct politics with other adults - apart from the usual damn the government stuff. Clear from the things they damn the government for, that about half of them are to the left of me.
My elder daughter started with the classic teenage politics - she is now starting to find Green policies she finds crazy. Getting taxed on the pay on her first student job has had an effect as well....
I love the way the right wing on here talk about "Lefty Friends". It's just the most transparently bollocks thing ever.
Why? I’m “right wing” and have friends who are left wing from committed socialist to Blairite. I have friends on the right from Cameroonian Tory to Reform curious. What sort of insular twit goes through life winnowing out friends who have different political ideologies?
I don’t choose my friends on politics, there are multiple reasons I do, character, fun, history, shared interests.
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
That's quite funny, CR, but it's a serious question and I should think there must have been some research done in this area, and also on the optimum size for a jury, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
I'm conflicted about the abolition of jury trials for medium level cases. I've no problem with most of the bizarre decisions .... the Colston statue, for example, although I did scratch my head over that of the Duchess of Edinburgh's outrider. It's always seemed to me that juries had, or should have, local knowledge which should lead them to a sensible confusion. In that connection I recall reading (I'm not THAT old) of the pre-WWII case of the Welsh Nationalists who set fire to a RAF base in Gwynedd, and the trial was moved to London because a local jury had disagreed, and the judge, and the State, very definitely wanted a conviction.
Jury trial dates back to ancient times; yes, but do we, in the 21st century get more 'accurate' results than, say, the Scandinavians, the French or the Germans? Who, as far as I know, rely on judges and assessors. (I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)
Do continental criminal lawyers get quite as combative as ours seem to, and are witnesses treated better or worse? Has anyone actually done any dispassionate work on this? Or are we simply seeing a knee-jerk response to what I hope is a short-term problem?
I'd understood that the continental legal system requires people to prove their innocence, rather than innocence being the initial presumption.
I would hope not. There must be a huge number of crimes that I could not prove I did not commit.
Most European systems have a non confrontational approach to trials (there is a proper name for that, that I can't remember). Anglosphere countries like the confrontational method.
Yes, and it seems to work perfectly well. The conviction (hah!) that you have to have a prosecution and a defence pitted against each other in order to determine guilt isn't the axiom that many seem to think it is. It's also possible, and in my view preferable, to determine guilt by carefully considering the facts of the case from a neutral standpoint, as is the case in many other countries.
The French police procedural TV series 'Spiral' is interesting from that respect, focusing as it does on the way the French system works and the interplay between the police and the judge during both the investigation into and prosecution for crime. It's very different from the way our system works, and from an inexpert view seems to offer both pros and cons as an alternative way to do things? In particular the judge appears to have an active, hands-on role from the moment the crime is committed, and not simply dropped in as the umpire if and when a case eventually comes to trial, as we do it.
Yes, that does sound interesting. In truth, I have little knowledge of the legal systems of the UK or of other countries. But it does seem to me to be strange to insist that our way of doing things is the only proper way to do it when there are obviously other ways that appear to work as least as fairly and effectively. It smacks of pure defensiveness: this is the way we've always done it, so this is the way we'll always do it.
It is interesting looking at how different places (that are also free developed societies) do things. As regards this country there are decent arguments IMO for and against the Leveson reforms re juries. What has very little merit, however, is to first run the CJS into the ground for lack of investment and then start bloviating about 'ancient liberties' and the Magna Carta when attempts are made to address the problem. Yes I'm looking at you the Conservative Party.
But apparently we have billions for digital ID, but no money to employ more Clerks of the Court to line everything up (including juries) for the courts?
Or is this an example of feast-or-famine government?
I'd say it's an example of something rather more humdrum - a person identifying something they don't like in government spend and opining that it would be better spent on something else.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Does he understand the pension change properly? It's a serious question given the misunderstandings prevalent.
Possibly not. Not sure I do.
The point, I think, is that working people are beginning to take a greater interest in these things, rather than just casting them to the outer reaches of their consciousness - boring and difficult to understand. And that may affect the political zeitgeist.
I dunno, really. But it looks to me as though TAX may actually becoming an issue again. And with it, the economy. It would be a relief from culture wars - but it intensify them?
Wow. A tiny shift and the Green Party will be in second place. Does this say more about British politics or the believability of current polling?
It's FON (FindOutNow). Their sample frame is people buying postcode lottery tickets. This is not the same as other pollsters and their results are noticeably different to the others. You can't really average them with other pollsters, they are either right or wrong and we won't know which until after the election.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
The left/right choice should be better services at a higher cost versus worse services at a lower cost, then people can decide where on the tax spectrum they want to place themselves. The problem is neither party admits the downside to their upside, ie higher taxes or worse services. So we end up in a sterile position.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Does he understand the pension change properly? It's a serious question given the misunderstandings prevalent.
Possibly not. Not sure I do.
The point, I think, is that working people are beginning to take a greater interest in these things, rather than just casting them to the outer reaches of their consciousness - boring and difficult to understand. And that may affect the political zeitgeist.
I dunno, really. But it looks to me as though TAX may actually becoming an issue again. And with it, the economy. It would be a relief from culture wars - but it intensify them?
Thanks. If he does understand that it only affects [edit] NI on the salaryu sacrifice element, *and not the whole pension*, and is still unhappy ...
Awful poll for Starmer and Reeves. Would see Farage PM with a Reform majority, Davey Leader of the Opposition with the LDs second on seats. Labour would collapse to sixth on seats with even fewer MPs than the Greens, SNP and Tories
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
Tourist taxes make a lot of sense from a pure economics point of view. What does Europe sell that the rest of the world wants and will pay through the nose for? Luxury goods, and tourist destinations. Both can be, in certain circumstances, Veblen goods. Cranking up tourist taxes is an effective way of monetising a valuable asset.
Though we know tourist attractions are also a little price-elastic and very faff-elastic. Britain gets fewer visitors partly because you can’t get here on a Schengen visa.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Hang on a minute. Are you sure?
That's HINRY. I think it must be High EARNING Not Rich Yet.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
t's quite widespread among locals in such areas, in Spain - they see the low end tourism as very impactful and not creating much in the way of well paid jobs.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about uping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
All those millionaires heading to Dubai. Great news for my business, not so great for Rachel.
It's a mystery to me why anyone with that sort of wealth would choose to spend their life living in Dubai. Each to his own I suppose
No tax and lots of sunshine, big houses and pools and luxury shops and hotels but culturally much of Dubai makes Essex look like Hampstead! Plus if you are LGBT it is a definite no no
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
The comments on the abolition of Grand Juries in the UK are of interest....
1933
Edward Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington MP (Con) - Whilst there might be an overwhelming case to abolish Grand Juries in great cities they might still fulfil a very useful function in other places and should be retained where no heavy expenditure was required. If a fascist government created new offences such as holding views disrespectful of the government, then the Grand Jury might be a very constitutional safeguard of immense value. The Grand Jury had been of value in the past and "it is well within the realm of possibility that it might be of great value in the future."
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Yep if I'm guilty I'm definitely going for the jury option. Give it some cheeky chappie from the dock, get them on my side. Like John Palmer. Goldfinger.
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
That's quite funny, CR, but it's a serious question and I should think there must have been some research done in this area, and also on the optimum size for a jury, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
I'm conflicted about the abolition of jury trials for medium level cases. I've no problem with most of the bizarre decisions .... the Colston statue, for example, although I did scratch my head over that of the Duchess of Edinburgh's outrider. It's always seemed to me that juries had, or should have, local knowledge which should lead them to a sensible confusion. In that connection I recall reading (I'm not THAT old) of the pre-WWII case of the Welsh Nationalists who set fire to a RAF base in Gwynedd, and the trial was moved to London because a local jury had disagreed, and the judge, and the State, very definitely wanted a conviction.
Jury trial dates back to ancient times; yes, but do we, in the 21st century get more 'accurate' results than, say, the Scandinavians, the French or the Germans? Who, as far as I know, rely on judges and assessors. (I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)
Do continental criminal lawyers get quite as combative as ours seem to, and are witnesses treated better or worse? Has anyone actually done any dispassionate work on this? Or are we simply seeing a knee-jerk response to what I hope is a short-term problem?
All good questions OKC, but I suspect no easy answers. Local knowledge would generally be thought of as an advantage, but if you remember the famous A6 murder trial, it was held in Bedford, close to the scene of the crime. Had it been held at the Old Bailey, Hanratty would probably have got off.
Thanks Mr P. Yes, I remember the Hanratty trial. All very dodgy, as I recall. On the Scandinavian point, I'm a little surprised that they don't have jury trial and we do, given the significant contribution Scandinavians made to the development of Britain. Was jury trial Saxon?
Norman, but that's according to AI. I'll run it past the ultimate authority when she is back from the shops.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
t's quite widespread among locals in such areas, in Spain - they see the low end tourism as very impactful and not creating much in the way of well paid jobs.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about uping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
It is quite a common policy in third world, and other poorer, nations which charge a low price for locals and a higher price for tourists whom are assumed to be wealthier.
Eg we went to Forbidden City in China when I was younger and I recall there being two sets of prices, one for the Chinese, and one much higher one for foreigners.
Of course given exchange rates and wealth differences, the cost for foreigners was still very affordable at the time.
No idea if they still do that, it was nearly 30 years ago.
Even my reliably lefty friends are questioning putting taxes up on working people to pay for more welfare. Very few defenders left, just a token Lib Dem(!) who says we need to give Labour a chance while the actual Labour voters are pining for the days Rishi and Hunt.
Spoke to a younger family member today (a HENRY - High Income Not Rich Yet) of impeccable liberal opinions but too busy working to take much interest in politics,.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Does he understand the pension change properly? It's a serious question given the misunderstandings prevalent.
Possibly not. Not sure I do.
The point, I think, is that working people are beginning to take a greater interest in these things, rather than just casting them to the outer reaches of their consciousness - boring and difficult to understand. And that may affect the political zeitgeist.
I dunno, really. But it looks to me as though TAX may actually becoming an issue again. And with it, the economy. It would be a relief from culture wars - but it intensify them?
My understanding is that the big changes on pensions is the limitation on salary sacrifice schemes which may eventually produce a few billion a year in tax (depending on how people react to the changes). Other changes, such as indexing PPF payments for pension funds in distress and making it easier for a DB scheme in surplus to release some of that surplus to members are very small beer. Importantly, despite all the warnings from the Telegraph and others, the tax free lump sum was untouched and tax relief continues to be granted at higher rates for higher rate taxpayers. It was very much the dog that didn't bark.
As usual, Steve Webb is worth listening to on this and he is urging that the government make commitments re pensions for the Parliament, not for a single year, so that people can plan with more confidence.
Talking very much against my own book, I am astonished that such a generous scheme for higher earners was left intact. It is a huge benefit to the better off in our society at the cost of the less well off. It drives inequality like little else and results in the effective tax rate of many higher earners being less than those earning a lot less whilst allowing them to pile up capital that those less well paid can only dream of.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
Is that not modest compared to the extra Visa fees and the rest?
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
It's quite widespread among locals in such areas, in Spain - they see the low end tourism as very impactful and not creating much in the way of well paid jobs.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about upping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
I really don't think this is about the author of the policy. It's about the rate. And generally I don't recall other tourist taxes discriminating on the basis of citizenship, normally domestic tourists also pay such tourist levies - e.g. I don't think only foreigners are charged the tourist tax in Edinburgh. The xenophobic aspect will naturally also rile a lot of people up.
I think you were totally after a gotcha, but you've missed the mark.
The left/right choice should be better services at a higher cost versus worse services at a lower cost, then people can decide where on the tax spectrum they want to place themselves. The problem is neither party admits the downside to their upside, ie higher taxes or worse services. So we end up in a sterile position.
No. The issue isn't really high or low taxes, neither of our current choices gives us an outcome that we should logically want. If the UK economy had grown faster and steadily this century we wouldn't mind paying 38% overall on our significantly higher GDP and incomes to pay for good services. Growth is the problem, Labour were right to identify it as such, but when Starmer is hyping up 1.5% growth this year being "50% higher than forecast" he may be technically correct, but that we settle for such low ambition shows how far we are from ever fixing out productivity problems.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
t's quite widespread among locals in such areas, in Spain - they see the low end tourism as very impactful and not creating much in the way of well paid jobs.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about uping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
It is quite a common policy in third world, and other poorer, nations which charge a low price for locals and a higher price for tourists whom are assumed to be wealthier.
Eg we went to Forbidden City in China when I was younger and I recall there being two sets of prices, one for the Chinese, and one much higher one for foreigners.
Of course given exchange rates and wealth differences, the cost for foreigners was still very affordable at the time.
No idea if they still do that, it was nearly 30 years ago.
Istanbul was the same when I was there last year, loads of signs only in Turkish at major attractions, that when translated said that there was a 90% discount for Turkish locals.
So I paid €20 to get into the palace, but it was only €2 for the locals.
Oh, and Turkish inflation was something silly like 80%, so prices for anything attracting tourists were always given in Euro and exchanged at today’s rate.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
t's quite widespread among locals in such areas, in Spain - they see the low end tourism as very impactful and not creating much in the way of well paid jobs.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about uping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
I was hoping that Osborne's Jack-in-a-Box £175k transferrable allowance would go, amongst other things. But no dice.
But to do it properly would require changes to the Gift regime, especially the gifts out of "not required" income being tax free. That is a charter for useless loafing offspring of very wealthy people *.
* See Charlie Gilmour.
No that hits the children of most of Middle England pensioners and like May's dementia tax would be political suicide
But, as already much discussed, unfair to everyone else. Aunties, uncles, those who have less valuable estates to leave and subsidize the ones who benefit.
Step children and adopted children also benefit from Osborne's inheritance tax cut. The Nil Rate Band Residence Inheritance tax exemption was the most popular Tory policy of the 21st century and without it half the estates in the country would now pay inheritance tax
How many of each are there compared with nephews and nieces? And plenty of people don't have direct descendants.
If the Tories were trying to introduce natalist policies it's a bloody stupid one. Cut Sire Start, cap the child benefit, and introduce RNRB. Great thinking.
It was a very effective one and effectively won the Tories most seats at the 2010 general election as overnight swing voters switched from Brown Labour to Cameron Conservatives when Osborne announced the inheritance tax cut. It ensured inheritance to get a deposit for grandchildren for instance.
The child benefit cap was also popular with voters, child benefit should have been increased for all voters not just those on benefits
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
Didn’t those Spanish resorts with the protests suffer from a lack of bookings this summer? Tens of thousands of jobs lost.
What the locals really want - behind all the "no tourists" thing - is an end to cheap, mass tourism.
They see little benefit from that - low paid, seasonal employment and the profits from the hotels etc go elsewhere.
I think it is a mistake to lump everyone together.
There will be some locals who want an end to low paid, seasonal tourism.
There will be some locals who want an end to tourism.
There will be some locals who want tourism to thrive and want the jobs etc
And those views will be influenced by how people think they will be affected. See: Support for permanently closing nightclubs in the UK, taxes on anyone etc.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Yep if I'm guilty I'm definitely going for the jury option. Give it some cheeky chappie from the dock, get them on my side. Like John Palmer. Goldfinger.
Though Palmer still got assassinated in a gangland shooting anyway
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Yep if I'm guilty I'm definitely going for the jury option. Give it some cheeky chappie from the dock, get them on my side. Like John Palmer. Goldfinger.
Though Palmer still got assassinated in a gangland shooting anyway
I thought Palmer still got assassinated anyway in order to frame Jack Bauer.
The left/right choice should be better services at a higher cost versus worse services at a lower cost, then people can decide where on the tax spectrum they want to place themselves. The problem is neither party admits the downside to their upside, ie higher taxes or worse services. So we end up in a sterile position.
No. The issue isn't really high or low taxes, neither of our current choices gives us an outcome that we should logically want. If the UK economy had grown faster and steadily this century we wouldn't mind paying 38% overall on our significantly higher GDP and incomes to pay for good services. Growth is the problem, Labour were right to identify it as such, but when Starmer is hyping up 1.5% growth this year being "50% higher than forecast" he may be technically correct, but that we settle for such low ambition shows how far we are from ever fixing out productivity problems.
Even this year, where net migration is expected to fall to only (!!) 430k that is an increase of roughly 0.6% in our population, all other things being equal. That makes per capita growth less than 1% per annum which is truly shocking. And the government reduced tax relief on investment. Shocking. Just shocking.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Yep if I'm guilty I'm definitely going for the jury option. Give it some cheeky chappie from the dock, get them on my side. Like John Palmer. Goldfinger.
Though Palmer still got assassinated in a gangland shooting anyway
He did. No trial there of any description. Straight to the business end.
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
LOL.
Countdown to someone in public life suggesting that's tantamount to guessing a password.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
In the situation where I'm on trial incorrectly, then the CPS have likely done a rush job in an office on a Friday afternoon and missed a bunch of exculpatory stuff. Once it actually gets to trial and is receiving adequate scrutiny then I'd rather be pointing out the holes in the prosecution case to a logically thinking judge than to an illogically thinking jury.
In a pure he said/she said scenario where it's all about who to believe it's a less obvious choice to me, but it's also pretty unlikely I'd be on trial for that.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
I'm sure they do, but generally they're in a minority, which is why places which have introduced tourist taxes do so at more modest rates.
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
It's quite widespread among locals in such areas, in Spain - they see the low end tourism as very impactful and not creating much in the way of well paid jobs.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about upping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
I really don't think this is about the author of the policy. It's about the rate. And generally I don't recall other tourist taxes discriminating on the basis of citizenship, normally domestic tourists also pay such tourist levies - e.g. I don't think only foreigners are charged the tourist tax in Edinburgh. The xenophobic aspect will naturally also rile a lot of people up.
I think you were totally after a gotcha, but you've missed the mark.
It’s common in South America that public attractions, such as museums are free to enter (or have massively reduced rates) if you are a citizen of that country. Foreigners pay full wack.
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Yep if I'm guilty I'm definitely going for the jury option. Give it some cheeky chappie from the dock, get them on my side. Like John Palmer. Goldfinger.
Though Palmer still got assassinated in a gangland shooting anyway
He did. No trial there of any description. Straight to the business end.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong people about how to reduce the backlog?
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
Tourist taxes make a lot of sense from a pure economics point of view. What does Europe sell that the rest of the world wants and will pay through the nose for? Luxury goods, and tourist destinations. Both can be, in certain circumstances, Veblen goods. Cranking up tourist taxes is an effective way of monetising a valuable asset.
Though we know tourist attractions are also a little price-elastic and very faff-elastic. Britain gets fewer visitors partly because you can’t get here on a Schengen visa.
There's a "polluter pays" justification too. In a city in Edinburgh, there are significant costs to tourism, particularly in regard to housing but also the way we trash our public parks and collapse our public transport system for two months of the year.
Most of the benefits are private, and the employment low wages and temp contracts. I'm sure overall it's a net benefit, but I'm certain we haven't optimised it. STL legislation has gone some way to help.
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
The consultants will write a very expensive, detailed report concluding staff at the OBR could not be expected to understand files uploaded to your web site can still be downloaded even if you don't link to them, as this is a deeply technical issue. They will recommend consultants be retained to train government departments how to take the appropriate steps to ensure this issue does not arise in future.
I see its been confirmed that student loan repayment thresholds have been frozen again next year, which confirms what I said a few days ago.
People working on minimum wage now will be facing 9% extra taxation on minimum wage earnings now as 40 hours per week at minimum wage alone takes you over the threshold.
Threshold = £25,000 Minimum wage at 40 hours per week is just over £26,500
The left/right choice should be better services at a higher cost versus worse services at a lower cost, then people can decide where on the tax spectrum they want to place themselves. The problem is neither party admits the downside to their upside, ie higher taxes or worse services. So we end up in a sterile position.
No. The issue isn't really high or low taxes, neither of our current choices gives us an outcome that we should logically want. If the UK economy had grown faster and steadily this century we wouldn't mind paying 38% overall on our significantly higher GDP and incomes to pay for good services. Growth is the problem, Labour were right to identify it as such, but when Starmer is hyping up 1.5% growth this year being "50% higher than forecast" he may be technically correct, but that we settle for such low ambition shows how far we are from ever fixing out productivity problems.
I don't think so. Expectations of growth might influence where you want to be on the tax versus services spectrum on a jam tomorrow basis. But at any particular time the decision is based on what you want from government and how much you are prepared to pay for it. The equation is still there.
"Foreign tourists visiting popular US national parks like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite will need to pay an extra fee, the Trump administration says.
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The local people in bits of Spain want the tourist taxes raised to "eff off" rates to get rid of the low end tourists.
Tourist taxes make a lot of sense from a pure economics point of view. What does Europe sell that the rest of the world wants and will pay through the nose for? Luxury goods, and tourist destinations. Both can be, in certain circumstances, Veblen goods. Cranking up tourist taxes is an effective way of monetising a valuable asset.
Though we know tourist attractions are also a little price-elastic and very faff-elastic. Britain gets fewer visitors partly because you can’t get here on a Schengen visa.
There's a "polluter pays" justification too. In a city in Edinburgh, there are significant costs to tourism, particularly in regard to housing but also the way we trash our public parks and collapse our public transport system for two months of the year.
Most of the benefits are private, and the employment low wages and temp contracts. I'm sure overall it's a net benefit, but I'm certain we haven't optimised it. STL legislation has gone some way to help.
Lol.
I know several people with businesses in Edinburgh.
They rely on tourism. Without it, There wouldn't be as many nice shops and eateries.
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
I often follow that approach so I am ready to download the document as soon as it is ready. I am very glad I didn't do that this time and end up seeing the document before the media reported the leak, or I would currently be having a serious compliance conversation around insider information! Sounds like the OBR screwed this up.
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
Surprised they haven’t tried to blame the Russians.
OBR calls in cyber expert over botched release of Budget analysis ... Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document. ... The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
LOL.
Countdown to someone in public life suggesting that's tantamount to guessing a password.
Should the BBC hackers be tried by 12 good men and true, or a Lammy-appointed judge?
I would like to be tried by jury if I did it. If I didn't do it, I'd like to be tried by judge.
Don't follow the logic of this.
I'd trust the judge to get it correct more than I would a jury. If I actually hadn't done the thing, then I would expect that to be very clear to the judge whereas the jury might just not like the look of me.
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Not sure where the idea to trust a judge to get it correct more than a jury comes from.
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
A judge would certainly have convicted the Colston statue protestors of criminal damage and the police escort of the Duchess of Edinburgh who killed an elderly pedestrian at speed of careless driving causing injury. A jury acquitted them both
Yep if I'm guilty I'm definitely going for the jury option. Give it some cheeky chappie from the dock, get them on my side. Like John Palmer. Goldfinger.
Though Palmer still got assassinated in a gangland shooting anyway
I thought Palmer still got assassinated anyway in order to frame Jack Bauer.
That's when I felt they jumped the shark.
He never got killed in any of the ones I saw. Michael Caine always survives. Even in Zulu.
Comments
It also frees up thousands of professional troops from other duties for better training and deployments. So when you go to France for a few years there has been a visual presence of troops at certain areas of cities and so on, these roles can be taken on by the volunteers which will allow regulars better use of their time.
I actually tried to join the TA here earlier this year but am too old but I think this 10 month voluntary option fills a gap between the TA and regular forces. Also might have a beneficial effect of people trying it without the regular commitment and finding it’s the life for them and so improving recruiting.
So now, there is a statistical thing going on. Among a random 12, say three might be too dim too follow anything, two might be heavily biased against one side or the other (in the olden days there was pretty universal bias against anyone in the dock). So if you had say 6, or 7 you are quite often going to get a completely lousy jury due to 'small sampling'.
(As to committees of the competent: a different question. Often the best number is one. The next best number about 5 or 6, carefully chosen by the one.)
I have one home which my wife and I bought in 1976 and is the family home
The 3 million beach front home is near but outrageously priced and unlikely to achieve that figure
They’ve just got to hope the economy improves a bit so they can push back some of these tax rises before they kick in, which I think is the gamble.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/27/mansion-tax-richmond-residents-react-council-tax-rise-budget-2025
Then the herd mentality kicks in because everyone likes to be liked.
(Possibly less from those likely to be conscripted ?)
And in any event, you never know what you'll find floating in a bowl of Pimm's.
Young people are, understandably, against slavery - particularly when Jeremy Clarkson got so excited by the prospect of free labour on his farm.
(This still makes me laugh: https://x.com/AnimarchyYT/status/1795642275634241640?t=JxxaWCJ9tQdMHnHuX51hAw&s=19)
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 31% (-1)
CON: 18% (+1)
GRN: 17% (-1)
LAB: 15% (-1)
LDM: 12% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @FindoutnowUK, 26 Nov.
Changes w/ 19 Nov."
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1993992748605558920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(1957_TV_series)
Sadly, that seems plausible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2025
The Department of the Interior, which runs the country's national parks, said each international visitor will need to pay $100 (£76) per person on top of existing fees to access 11 of the most popular sites.
From 2026, non-residents will also need to pay more than $250 for an annual pass to the parks, while US citizens and permanent residents will continue to pay $80.
The fee hike aims to "put American families first" and reflects President Donald Trump's goal to make the parks more accessible and affordable for US citizens, said the department, external."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kpnxvpgy2o
Conversely, if I had done it I would expect that to be obvious to a judge who'd heard all the excuses and wouldn't be distractable with irrelevancies, whereas I might get lucky with a gullible, sympathetic, or plain daft jury.
The one case I'm not sure about is when it's my word against another (most likely a sexual assault as otherwise it probably wouldn't have got to trial)... maybe a jury is always best then.
Stunned at the tax announcement on pensions. And a gradually dawning awareness of being well and truly stuffed by taxes generally. (Has mortgage and student debt).
My impression is that sympathy for welfare recipients is somewhat diminishing.
I wonder if we could be reaching a tipping point when general opinion is going to move on the welfare issue. Judging by the strength of her comments yesterday, Kemi evidently believes so. But is she right?
Or have I got my cue cards muddled up again?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jun/15/campaigners-mount-coordinated-protests-across-europe-against-touristification etc
Performative cruelty to people who are legal. Example: Couple of dozen to a cell, where showers and toilets are in the open for all to see.
Inside ICE Detention: Stripped, Shackled, Starved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4X0hI40a8A
Or is this an example of feast-or-famine government?
Possible that is the intent, to dissuade US tourism to reduce the risk of Americans speaking to people who live in free democratic countries.
The Tories are saying they'd cut £23bn from welfare spending, I'd like to see what that specifically entails but I think it will be a very popular policy by the time we get to the election.
Any party wanting to continue it at the next election is not getting my vote.
My elder daughter started with the classic teenage politics - she is now starting to find Green policies she finds crazy. Getting taxed on the pay on her first student job has had an effect as well....
I don’t choose my friends on politics, there are multiple reasons I do, character, fun, history, shared interests.
https://store.usgs.gov/lifetime-senior-pass
There are occasional free days in US national parks.
(I have had the predecessor pass, called Golden Age, for about 20 years now. It is good for everyone with me in a car, by the way.)
The point, I think, is that working people are beginning to take a greater interest in these things, rather than just casting them to the outer reaches of their consciousness - boring and difficult to understand. And that may affect the political zeitgeist.
I dunno, really. But it looks to me as though TAX may actually becoming an issue again. And with it, the economy. It would be a relief from culture wars - but it intensify them?
Especially since if you are not guilty but on trial there's already been enough to convince the CPS to put you on trial, I'm not sure I'd like to put my faith in just one person alone determining that I am guilty or not guilty.
I'd feel much more confident appealing to show my innocence to 12 individuals than any one.
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast/custom
I'm not sure if I'm in favour of tourist taxes in general, but I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is for people who support tourist taxes, but oppose Trump's version.
You can still spend 89 days in the UK if you’re British, and most will have other businesses in various countries anyway.
Same reason that travelling sportspeople have lived in Monaco for decades.
Though we know tourist attractions are also a little price-elastic and very faff-elastic. Britain gets fewer visitors partly because you can’t get here on a Schengen visa.
That's HINRY. I think it must be High EARNING Not Rich Yet.
It's not about gotchas - just interesting to see people approving of policies by their author.
There has been a long running debate in the US about uping the fees for the national parks. Which aren't just fenced off bits of wilderness, but quite actively managed. Trump has managed to pick a fairly extreme option, as usual for him.
1933
Edward Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington MP (Con) - Whilst there might be an overwhelming case to abolish Grand Juries in great cities they might still fulfil a very useful function in other places and should be retained where no heavy expenditure was required. If a fascist government created new offences such as holding views disrespectful of the government, then the Grand Jury might be a very constitutional safeguard of immense value. The Grand Jury had been of value in the past and "it is well within the realm of possibility that it might be of great value in the future."
UK to manufacture Ukranian-designed “Octopus” small drones.
https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/1993960257899647273
Eg we went to Forbidden City in China when I was younger and I recall there being two sets of prices, one for the Chinese, and one much higher one for foreigners.
Of course given exchange rates and wealth differences, the cost for foreigners was still very affordable at the time.
No idea if they still do that, it was nearly 30 years ago.
As usual, Steve Webb is worth listening to on this and he is urging that the government make commitments re pensions for the Parliament, not for a single year, so that people can plan with more confidence.
Talking very much against my own book, I am astonished that such a generous scheme for higher earners was left intact. It is a huge benefit to the better off in our society at the cost of the less well off. It drives inequality like little else and results in the effective tax rate of many higher earners being less than those earning a lot less whilst allowing them to pile up capital that those less well paid can only dream of.
They see little benefit from that - low paid, seasonal employment and the profits from the hotels etc go elsewhere.
...
Even though the document was not listed on the OBR website, journalists - including those at the BBC - were able to access by guessing its URL, which was very similar to one used in a previous official document.
...
The BBC was able to access the PDF version of the OBR's key report at 11:45 on Wednesday by replacing the word 'March' with 'November' in the web address of a previous edition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmn991pz9jo
Dunno what's left for the OBR's expert to discover, except how much the OBR will pay external consultants in order to protect their bosses' jobs.
I think you were totally after a gotcha, but you've missed the mark.
So I paid €20 to get into the palace, but it was only €2 for the locals.
Oh, and Turkish inflation was something silly like 80%, so prices for anything attracting tourists were always given in Euro and exchanged at today’s rate.
So I expect the hefty foreign tourist tax is to pay for reversing the cuts without reversing the Govt expenditure cuts.
The child benefit cap was also popular with voters, child benefit should have been increased for all voters not just those on benefits
There will be some locals who want an end to low paid, seasonal tourism.
There will be some locals who want an end to tourism.
There will be some locals who want tourism to thrive and want the jobs etc
And those views will be influenced by how people think they will be affected. See: Support for permanently closing nightclubs in the UK, taxes on anyone etc.
That's when I felt they jumped the shark.
In a pure he said/she said scenario where it's all about who to believe it's a less obvious choice to me, but it's also pretty unlikely I'd be on trial for that.
I think other countries do the same.
Most of the benefits are private, and the employment low wages and temp contracts. I'm sure overall it's a net benefit, but I'm certain we haven't optimised it. STL legislation has gone some way to help.
People working on minimum wage now will be facing 9% extra taxation on minimum wage earnings now as 40 hours per week at minimum wage alone takes you over the threshold.
Threshold = £25,000
Minimum wage at 40 hours per week is just over £26,500
Insanity.
I know several people with businesses in Edinburgh.
They rely on tourism. Without it, There wouldn't be as many nice shops and eateries.
Sounds like the OBR screwed this up.