Skip to content

I’ve changed my mind, I want Starmer to try and abolish juries – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,880
edited January 11 in General
I’ve changed my mind, I want Starmer to try and abolish juries – politicalbetting.com

A Labour MP has made an extraordinary attack on Sir Keir Starmer’s planned jury reforms, threatening to trigger a by-election unless they are dropped, as he revealed he was once falsely accused of a crime.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,100
    First.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,100
    dixiedean said:

    First.

    Quite remarkable as I'm snowed in on retreat.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,231
    Isn't this John Prescott's old seat? He'd be doing donuts in his two jags if he knew.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,565
    Battlebus said:

    Isn't this John Prescott's old seat? He'd be doing donuts in his two jags if he knew.

    Yes, Prescott's old seat.

    I had a look on Wiki earlier when I was grabbing the screenshot of 2024 result and I noticed in 2001 his Liberal Democrat opponent was Jo Swinson.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull_East#Elections_in_the_2000s
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,565
    edited January 11
    On topic.

    Hurrah for principled lawyers like Karl Turner.

    Edit - Ugh, apologies for that horrible tautology, 'principled lawyers'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    On topic.

    Hurrah for principled lawyers like Karl Turner.

    Edit - Ugh, apologies for that horrible tautology, 'principled lawyers'.

    As you will no doubt know, what their principles are can vary a lot.

    You have to wonder if the leadership is trying to work their backbenchers at all. Many will be unhappy but this sort of thimg is very rare, some attention can talk people down before it gets to this.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,231
    The voter profile there according to the National Centre for Social Research is "Left-behind patriots" It's a classic Reform seat - tax the rich / benefits are being fiddled / death penalty (for benefit claimants) / Brexit leaning etc, etc.

    It's an odd hill for Turner to die on but I suppose he couldn't just state the obvious that he's toast at the next election.

    https://natcen.ac.uk/will-reform-labour-or-conservatives-inspire-left-behind-patriots-vote
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,862
    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    Battlebus said:

    The voter profile there according to the National Centre for Social Research is "Left-behind patriots" It's a classic Reform seat - tax the rich / benefits are being fiddled / death penalty (for benefit claimants) / Brexit leaning etc, etc.

    It's an odd hill for Turner to die on but I suppose he couldn't just state the obvious that he's toast at the next election.

    https://natcen.ac.uk/will-reform-labour-or-conservatives-inspire-left-behind-patriots-vote

    Many more much more burnt than him, as things stand.

    But we'll see how in particular many 1st time Labour MPs won't stand again, as happened with the Tories.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,042
    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Can’t they just come to PoliticalBetting.com instead?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,904
    I suppose the government plans to reduce trials by jury because due to a backlog of cases people aren't getting any justice at all.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,773
    edited January 11
    Time to call up Private Eye's Apocalypse correspondent Hellena Handcart.........
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,245
    With the Speccie piece & the Kuenssberg interview, this weekend obviously set up for the Mandelson 'I'm a fighter not a quitter' moment.
    He says he was insulated from Epstein's paedo stuff because he was gay. Not very persuasive.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,904
    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 8,165
    FF43 said:

    I suppose the government plans to reduce trials by jury because due to a backlog of cases people aren't getting any justice at all.

    They'll be bringing jury trials back when the backlog is gone, then, will they? A bag or a box for your bridge, sir?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,142
    bondegezou said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Can’t they just come to PoliticalBetting.com instead?
    Indeed - all the world is here...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    Roger said:

    Time to call up Private Eye's Apocalypse correspondent Hellena Handcart.........

    You have to hand it to the last Tory administration they left the nation ungovernable as we will also see with the advent of a Reform government next time around, but this Government have fallen into every bear trap the Tories set for them and they have even fallen into some of their own.

    Starmer needs to be sat down and told the home truth that as Prime Minister he just isn't very good. And unlike similarly qualified Tory Prime Ministers he has no tame Newspaper Editors to hide behind.

    For the love of God- go man!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,427
    Theuniondivvie said:

    With the Speccie piece & the Kuenssberg interview, this weekend obviously set up for the Mandelson 'I'm a fighter not a quitter' moment.
    He says he was insulated from Epstein's paedo stuff because he was gay. Not very persuasive.

    I thought Mandelson, when talking about both Trump and Epstein, came across as naive.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,703
    edited January 11
    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Sure but if you have young teenagers - people who almost by definition of their stage of development lack an adult level of self-control in the face of anything addictive - almost universally using something for which there is huge evidence is very bad for them, then what do you do? Surely banning that thing (social media) is a good place to start? Frankly they'd be better off watching Netflix or sport before you get onto the more positive experiences we should be promoting more of (playing sports, arts etc).

    I'm not Conservative but I welcome Badenoch's intervention. Hopefully the political consensus grows as we get more data from Australia.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    OldKingCole said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    With the Speccie piece & the Kuenssberg interview, this weekend obviously set up for the Mandelson 'I'm a fighter not a quitter' moment.
    He says he was insulated from Epstein's paedo stuff because he was gay. Not very persuasive.

    I thought Mandelson, when talking about both Trump and Epstein, came across as naive.
    Proof that sometimes even a stopped clock can remain wrong for an entire 24 hour duration.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,331
    I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Kemi Badenoch is saying about children and social media. It seems to me parents would welcome a cross-party consensus around much bolder action.

    https://x.com/andyburnhamgm/status/2010282959551811637?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,904
    OldKingCole said:

    Surely Turner is right; the 'plan' to abolish juries seems like a hurried, 'quick-fix' answer to a serious and long standing problem. Countires which don't have jury trials have a different, inquisitorial system of justice. If we abolish jury trials, even temporarily, are we going to have judges, lawyers and, importantly, the police thinking and behaving differently?

    The fact is that Courts in this country, E& W especially, have been underfunded and overloaded, given their funding, for years, especially the last ten or so, and what we need are more Courts and more juries.

    I s suspect both/and rather either/or. The previous government seriously ran down the English justice system over many years, which requires costly remedial action. Efficiency also needs to be considered with the requirement that quality of Judicial outcomes are maintained. In the meantime people have criminal cases hanging over them that just aren't going to trial, while victims aren't getting justice either.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,259
    @MattW re Knutsford; is Canewdon in Essex also in the North?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,427
    BlancheLivermore said:

    @MattW re Knutsford; is Canewdon in Essex also in the North?

    Canewdon is on the north side of the chunk of land on which Southend also sits.

    It's also, allegedly, the village with most witches in Essex; in my youth we used to be cautioned about going there on Hallowe'en.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    edited January 11
    dixiedean said:

    Ratters said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Sure but if you have young teenagers - people who almost by definition of their stage of development lack an adult level of self-control in the face of anything addictive - almost universally using something for which there is huge evidence is very bad for them, then what do you do? Surely banning that thing (social media) is a good place to start? Frankly they'd be better off watching Netflix or sport before you get onto the more positive experiences we should be promoting more of (playing sports, arts etc).

    I'm not Conservative but I welcome Badenoch's intervention. Hopefully the political consensus grows as we get more data from Australia.
    But social media use is falling amongst every age demographic apart from the old.
    What is the plan to deal with naive and credulous over 60's who believe without question any AI slop?
    I think that is a worry. People of my age see the guy scrambling into the boot of a car moments before the tiger is about to consume him and think, "blimey, that was close!" Or the car door opening and the bike rider falling under the semi truck before crawling out unscathed, " blimey, another close one!"

    But I have seen them with my own in eyes. They must be true.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,588
    Crime is a perfect example of where Truss was right in that the Treasury have broken the country.

    We can't afford to fix law and order, so we have to put up with the cost of crime. Instead of paying to lock up thugs and shoplifters - and thus make our economy work harder - we pay to let them run rampant - and thus make our economy slow down even more.

    We're spending the same money we could spend fixing the problem on mopping up the mess created by not fixing the problem.

    The treasury imposes this stupidity on us on every topic at all levels of government. Until we recognise that cuts cost more money than spending to fix the problem, our decline will continue.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,427
    dixiedean said:

    Ratters said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Sure but if you have young teenagers - people who almost by definition of their stage of development lack an adult level of self-control in the face of anything addictive - almost universally using something for which there is huge evidence is very bad for them, then what do you do? Surely banning that thing (social media) is a good place to start? Frankly they'd be better off watching Netflix or sport before you get onto the more positive experiences we should be promoting more of (playing sports, arts etc).

    I'm not Conservative but I welcome Badenoch's intervention. Hopefully the political consensus grows as we get more data from Australia.
    But social media use is falling amongst every age demographic apart from the old.
    What is the plan to deal with naive and credulous over 60's who believe without question any AI slop?
    "naive and credulous over 60's who believe without question any AI slop"

    Or Nigel Farage?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,427
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Crime is a perfect example of where Truss was right in that the Treasury have broken the country.

    We can't afford to fix law and order, so we have to put up with the cost of crime. Instead of paying to lock up thugs and shoplifters - and thus make our economy work harder - we pay to let them run rampant - and thus make our economy slow down even more.

    We're spending the same money we could spend fixing the problem on mopping up the mess created by not fixing the problem.

    The treasury imposes this stupidity on us on every topic at all levels of government. Until we recognise that cuts cost more money than spending to fix the problem, our decline will continue.

    We had a prison with 600 or so place standing empty for years because it wasn't safe.

    However, AIUI, first our present King and now his elder son recharging rent for it!

    Please someone, tell me I'm wrong!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Crime is a perfect example of where Truss was right in that the Treasury have broken the country.

    We can't afford to fix law and order, so we have to put up with the cost of crime. Instead of paying to lock up thugs and shoplifters - and thus make our economy work harder - we pay to let them run rampant - and thus make our economy slow down even more.

    We're spending the same money we could spend fixing the problem on mopping up the mess created by not fixing the problem.

    The treasury imposes this stupidity on us on every topic at all levels of government. Until we recognise that cuts cost more money than spending to fix the problem, our decline will continue.

    However as we don't want to be taxed more, we don't want to work harder to stimulate growth, we want to deport growth generating people from our country and we don't want service cuts what else can we do?
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 395
    Theuniondivvie said:

    With the Speccie piece & the Kuenssberg interview, this weekend obviously set up for the Mandelson 'I'm a fighter not a quitter' moment.
    He says he was insulated from Epstein's paedo stuff because he was gay. Not very persuasive.

    Let's hear the other side of the story, time for Kuenssberg to interview some Epstein victims for balance. Perhaps he was merely lurking around having cups of tea

    Kuenssberg's choice of guests always seems to favour the establishment or those in or formerly in/near power thinking they have had a rough deal
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,927
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    The question here, if Labour withdraws the whip - their normal response to someone voting for an opposition motion - is whether in the by-election he'd be up against an 'official' Labour candidate? This could actually increase his chances of taking a chunk of NOTA voters back from Reform.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,588
    Mexicanpete said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Crime is a perfect example of where Truss was right in that the Treasury have broken the country.

    We can't afford to fix law and order, so we have to put up with the cost of crime. Instead of paying to lock up thugs and shoplifters - and thus make our economy work harder - we pay to let them run rampant - and thus make our economy slow down even more.

    We're spending the same money we could spend fixing the problem on mopping up the mess created by not fixing the problem.

    The treasury imposes this stupidity on us on every topic at all levels of government. Until we recognise that cuts cost more money than spending to fix the problem, our decline will continue.

    However as we don't want to be taxed more, we don't want to work harder to stimulate growth, we want to deport growth generating people from our country and we don't want service cuts what else can we do?
    Spend money differently. Crime costs money - we are all paying for that. Spend the money on combatting crime as opposed to the cost of crime running rampant.

    Same with teachers. We can't afford full time teachers but we can afford emergency supply cover at multiples the cost. We train doctors then don't have jobs for them to go to. But pay £lots for cover due to the lack of staff.

    The constraints of this year's budget are killing us.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    First.

    Quite remarkable as I'm snowed in on retreat.
    Serves you right for invading Russia?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    In terms of performance she did OK, although she still seems too combative over the minor stuff which makes it hard to see her as a potential PM. The contradiction between her being the first major politician to come out in favour of the social media ban/age limit and her seeking to contrast the Tories with Labour and Reform in terms of not being "authoritarian" was glaring, but missed entirely by LK.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    One of those issues, though, where we just know you and your Labour chums would be taking an entirely different stance were it the evil Tories trying to abolish our so-very-long-held right as British subjects to be judged by our peers....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,565
    IanB2 said:

    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    One of those issues, though, where we just know you and your Labour chums would be taking an entirely different stance were it the evil Tories trying to abolish our so-very-long-held right as British subjects to be judged by our peers....
    Well...


  • eekeek Posts: 32,250
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    I think its fair to examine how the money is being spent. So, for example, a HC jury trial will normally cost around £15k a day. And that, of course, is the direct cost to the state. The cost of the jurors missing work and the economy losing productivity is not included. Given the average trial will take a week that is quite a serious investment by the State. Is that proportionate when the trial is about, say, 1 drug dealer hitting another over the head with a hammer? You can argue individual cases either way but I think that is a legitimate topic for debate.

    Personally, I consider the jury trial a Rolls Royce service. Sometimes a Ford Escort would do. Jury trials also inevitably take longer than trials before a judge or judges who don't need the explanations of procedure and rules explained to them. This is a guess but I would estimate a jury trial takes roughly 2x as long as a trial before a Judge. That also increases the cost, it limits the capacity of the system and that, in turn, causes delays.
    How much of that explanation of procedure could be shifted to an onboarding course that would not require the judge to be present?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Crime is a perfect example of where Truss was right in that the Treasury have broken the country.

    We can't afford to fix law and order, so we have to put up with the cost of crime. Instead of paying to lock up thugs and shoplifters - and thus make our economy work harder - we pay to let them run rampant - and thus make our economy slow down even more.

    We're spending the same money we could spend fixing the problem on mopping up the mess created by not fixing the problem.

    The treasury imposes this stupidity on us on every topic at all levels of government. Until we recognise that cuts cost more money than spending to fix the problem, our decline will continue.

    However as we don't want to be taxed more, we don't want to work harder to stimulate growth, we want to deport growth generating people from our country and we don't want service cuts what else can we do?
    Spend money differently. Crime costs money - we are all paying for that. Spend the money on combatting crime as opposed to the cost of crime running rampant.

    Same with teachers. We can't afford full time teachers but we can afford emergency supply cover at multiples the cost. We train doctors then don't have jobs for them to go to. But pay £lots for cover due to the lack of staff.

    The constraints of this year's budget are killing us.
    Yes but there has to be an initial investment to reverse the decline. Once the ship has been steadied your spending money more wisely notion enters the room.

    We are paying for the legacy of austerity, but if you want to operate, I don't know, preventative programmes like Sure start cash needs to be put up front. Neither a Tory-lite Starmer Government nor a Reform Government is going to do that.

    Likewise more bobbies on the beat, health improvement education programmes...

    We need to speculate to accumulate. No Government since 2008 has attempted that.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,231
    edited January 11
    IanB2 said:

    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    One of those issues, though, where we just know you and your Labour chums would be taking an entirely different stance were it the evil Tories trying to abolish our so-very-long-held right as British subjects to be judged by our peers....
    One of the issues with long jury trials is that it is very, very expensive for the accused. You can be innocent or adjudged innocent but be bankrupt. Quick, fair trials work for everyone except lawyers. See 'Secret Barrister' on the issue.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    Theuniondivvie said:

    With the Speccie piece & the Kuenssberg interview, this weekend obviously set up for the Mandelson 'I'm a fighter not a quitter' moment.
    He says he was insulated from Epstein's paedo stuff because he was gay. Not very persuasive.

    "I was friends with him for years even after he was convicted for child prostitution, but it's ok because I did not do the same things as him" is not much of a defence, to be sure.

    Considering Mandelson is known to be bright and eloquent, his powers seem to be fading if he is still contemplating a public defence.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,297
    The US is getting ever closer to civil war. This is the Sheriff in Minnesota yesterday: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/philadelphia-sheriff-rips-ice-as-fake-law-enforcement-after-minnesota-shooting/vi-AA1TU7uI?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover

    She says: “Law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE, probably Trump’s new army to attack citizens of the United States...no law enforcement professional wears a mask. None.” She goes on to say, “Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles...Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles invoking action that is illegal.”

    It would seem all too likely we are going to see armed stand offs between local law enforcement and ICE agents in the following days.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    So address that problem. Abandoning the system because there are delays seems to be a very disproportionate reaction. Are we suggesting we not treat old people because they are taking up a lot of time on the NHS and that is not very efficient?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,941
    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    That proof might be very difficult to find. Appealing a case in either court takes time and money. Are those currently being convicted in a magistrates court for a fairly minor crime going to bother with an appeal even if they know they are innocent?

    Also magistrates proceedings are not recorded - something that might become a far bigger issue if more serious crimes are being heard in front of a magistrate.

    Looking at the appealing numbers, around 40% of appeals against a magistrates conviction are successful compared to around 20% of appeals against a Crown Court conviction.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    dixiedean said:

    Ratters said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Sure but if you have young teenagers - people who almost by definition of their stage of development lack an adult level of self-control in the face of anything addictive - almost universally using something for which there is huge evidence is very bad for them, then what do you do? Surely banning that thing (social media) is a good place to start? Frankly they'd be better off watching Netflix or sport before you get onto the more positive experiences we should be promoting more of (playing sports, arts etc).

    I'm not Conservative but I welcome Badenoch's intervention. Hopefully the political consensus grows as we get more data from Australia.
    But social media use is falling amongst every age demographic apart from the old.
    What is the plan to deal with naive and credulous over 60's who believe without question any AI slop?
    A very fair question indeed. There are fools among the young, the middle aged, and the old, and when it comes to social media credulousness, my dad could certainly give his grandkids a run for their money.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,650
    Conservative governments closed literally hundreds of courts since 2010. That (as well as the Covid pandemic) is why there is a backlog of criminal trials. Limiting trial by jury will do nothing to solve the actual problem.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,773
    edited January 11
    Mexicanpete said:

    Roger said:

    Time to call up Private Eye's Apocalypse correspondent Hellena Handcart.........

    You have to hand it to the last Tory administration they left the nation ungovernable as we will also see with the advent of a Reform government next time around, but this Government have fallen into every bear trap the Tories set for them and they have even fallen into some of their own.

    Starmer needs to be sat down and told the home truth that as Prime Minister he just isn't very good. And unlike similarly qualified Tory Prime Ministers he has no tame Newspaper Editors to hide behind.

    For the love of God- go man!
    Blair who is the best template for a Labour leader used the well tried formula of testing public opinion and then giving them what they wanted or at worst making sure he didn't force on them what they didn't want. Abracadabra we had a Party who shared the values of the rest of us.

    How big a department Philip Gould had I have no idea but it should have been Starmer's starting point. If you don't test public opinion-and thar doesn't mean reading the Daily Mail- you can't take the public with you

    Yesterday I heard that Starmer had U-turned 12 times in a year and a half
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 228
    Let's knock on the head the entirely false claim that the proposal to abolish jury trials is because of delays. Sarah Sackman, the Solicitor-General, recently stated very clearly that the proposal would still go ahead if there was no backlog at all. It is ideological.

    Turner is right to oppose it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,297
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    I think its fair to examine how the money is being spent. So, for example, a HC jury trial will normally cost around £15k a day. And that, of course, is the direct cost to the state. The cost of the jurors missing work and the economy losing productivity is not included. Given the average trial will take a week that is quite a serious investment by the State. Is that proportionate when the trial is about, say, 1 drug dealer hitting another over the head with a hammer? You can argue individual cases either way but I think that is a legitimate topic for debate.

    Personally, I consider the jury trial a Rolls Royce service. Sometimes a Ford Escort would do. Jury trials also inevitably take longer than trials before a judge or judges who don't need the explanations of procedure and rules explained to them. This is a guess but I would estimate a jury trial takes roughly 2x as long as a trial before a Judge. That also increases the cost, it limits the capacity of the system and that, in turn, causes delays.
    How much of that explanation of procedure could be shifted to an onboarding course that would not require the judge to be present?
    I think someone with more experience of the English system would be better to answer that. In Scotland the fundamental principles and basic procedure from the Judge takes 60-90 minutes so not massive.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,514
    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    Battlebus said:

    IanB2 said:

    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    One of those issues, though, where we just know you and your Labour chums would be taking an entirely different stance were it the evil Tories trying to abolish our so-very-long-held right as British subjects to be judged by our peers....
    One of the issues with long jury trials is that it is very, very expensive for the accused. You can be innocent or adjudged innocent but be bankrupt. Quick, fair trials work for everyone except lawyers. See 'Secret Barrister' on the issue.
    That's not really an argument for removing the option, the choice sitting with the accused as it is, though, is it?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,391
    edited January 11
    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done and well aware what it was he was done for.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    AnthonyT said:

    Let's knock on the head the entirely false claim that the proposal to abolish jury trials is because of delays. Sarah Sackman, the Solicitor-General, recently stated very clearly that the proposal would still go ahead if there was no backlog at all. It is ideological.

    Turner is right to oppose it.

    I was not aware of that.

    Defending the proposals in a Commons debate yesterday, courts minister Sarah Sackman said: ‘People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system. One in which courts, not criminals, triage cases.
    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/minister-admits-jury-trials-would-be-curbed-regardless-of-courts-crisis/5125535.article

    It is, at least, a more coherent argument in favour than 'The system is under too much pressure, so let's abandon a core element of it because we think it is too hard'.

    By focusing on the underfunding and underresourcing leading to delays and other problems, as Lammy did, it makes other options seem much more reasonable. I disagree with Sackman, but it sounds like she knows the better way to try to sell it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.

    He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.

    He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    edited January 11
    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Judging the moving traffic so you can slide into a gap in the circulation without having to stop before entering a roundabout is one of the joys of driving, as well as a reason why roundabouts are more efficient. Being behind someone who always stops at a roundabout before they even start looking for traffic is very frustrating, especially when there is clearly no-one at all coming around. I see this very often on the A3 roundabout at Liss, where the dual carriageway seems to make too many drivers stop automatically, despite the fact that traffic not continuing on the A3 is in significant minority.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,391
    edited January 11
    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.

    He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.

    He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
    Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,270
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.

    He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.

    He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
    Its a strange decision to do an interview. What doed he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics.
    Believes his own bullcrap I would imagine. He's been swanning about with the rich and powerful for decades - and I'm sure he still is to this day, in a quieter and less obvious way - and cannot mentally accept that he crossed a line and the best thing he can do now is go into retirement and reflect upon his mistakes. Genuinely reflect on them I mean, not the 'I had no idea' deflection.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    Roger said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Roger said:

    Time to call up Private Eye's Apocalypse correspondent Hellena Handcart.........

    You have to hand it to the last Tory administration they left the nation ungovernable as we will also see with the advent of a Reform government next time around, but this Government have fallen into every bear trap the Tories set for them and they have even fallen into some of their own.

    Starmer needs to be sat down and told the home truth that as Prime Minister he just isn't very good. And unlike similarly qualified Tory Prime Ministers he has no tame Newspaper Editors to hide behind.

    For the love of God- go man!
    Blair who is the best template for a Labour leader used the well tried formula of testing public opinion and then giving them what they wanted or at worst making sure he didn't force on them what they didn't want. Abracadabra we had a Party who shared the values of the rest of us.

    How big a department Philip Gould had I have no idea but it should have been Starmer's starting point. If you don't test public opinion-and thar doesn't mean reading the Daily Mail- you can't take the public with you

    Yesterday I heard that Starmer had U-turned 12 times in a year and a half
    The problem here is a failure of leadership specifically because that leader has no direction. If Starmer and the PLP doesn't twig that he is now the problem they deserve the even more hideous and cruel RefCon Government that will follow this directionless continuity Johnson/Truss/ Sunak abdomination.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,037
    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Treat yourself.

    https://www.historicaracewear.com/products/copy-of-classic-stringback-driving-gloves-black
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,800
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.

    He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.

    He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
    Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
    Addiction to being a 'someone' in the media spotlight. It's remarkably common, and I'd guess that the cold turkey back to being a relative nobody is hard for some of these egoists to cope with?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,655
    DavidL said:

    The US is getting ever closer to civil war. This is the Sheriff in Minnesota yesterday: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/philadelphia-sheriff-rips-ice-as-fake-law-enforcement-after-minnesota-shooting/vi-AA1TU7uI?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover

    She says: “Law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE, probably Trump’s new army to attack citizens of the United States...no law enforcement professional wears a mask. None.” She goes on to say, “Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles...Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles invoking action that is illegal.”

    It would seem all too likely we are going to see armed stand offs between local law enforcement and ICE agents in the following days.

    It's worth noting that the ICE man who killed the mum was a 9 year veteran, not one of the new batch.

    That hints at a deeper problem than ICE being Trump's newly recruited goon army.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,142
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done and well aware what it was he was done for.

    What is his definition of "girls"?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,650
    kle4 said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Let's knock on the head the entirely false claim that the proposal to abolish jury trials is because of delays. Sarah Sackman, the Solicitor-General, recently stated very clearly that the proposal would still go ahead if there was no backlog at all. It is ideological.

    Turner is right to oppose it.

    I was not aware of that.

    Defending the proposals in a Commons debate yesterday, courts minister Sarah Sackman said: ‘People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system. One in which courts, not criminals, triage cases.
    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/minister-admits-jury-trials-would-be-curbed-regardless-of-courts-crisis/5125535.article

    It is, at least, a more coherent argument in favour than 'The system is under too much pressure, so let's abandon a core element of it because we think it is too hard'.

    By focusing on the underfunding and underresourcing leading to delays and other problems, as Lammy did, it makes other options seem much more reasonable. I disagree with Sackman, but it sounds like she knows the better way to try to sell it.
    Sarah Sackman is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.

    Like David Lammy, she is also a Harvard-educated lawyer.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,766
    IanB2 said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Judging the moving traffic so you can slide into a gap in the circulation without having to stop before entering a roundabout is one of the joys of driving, as well as a reason why roundabouts are more efficient. Being behind someone who always stops at a roundabout before they even start looking for traffic is very frustrating, especially when there is clearly no-one at all coming around. I see this very often on the A3 roundabout at Liss, where the dual carriageway seems to make too many drivers stop automatically, despite the fact that traffic not continuing on the A3 is in significant minority.
    Good morning

    'Being behind someone who always stops at a roundabout before they even start looking for traffic is very frustrating, especially when there is clearly no-one at all coming around'

    Sounds like you found @HYUFD judging by last nights comments !!!!!!!!!!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,904
    edited January 11
    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    I think juries play an essential role in the democratisation of justice. In controversial cases they can on the facts let unpopular defendants go free (eg someone accused of paedophilia for which the evidence is lacking). They can also convict popular defendants. A good example of this is Lucy Letby. The jury decided on the evidence she was guilty despite a campaign to free her (I'm not making a comment on the quality of the evidence). In either case their decision is respected by the public, when it might not be when made by a judge.

    In non controversial cases (big majority I suspect) I doubt the quality of their decisions is better than systems with magistrates or lay assessors. If it costs several times more to have a jury trial and at the same time trials aren't being processed due to capacity and funding, I think you need to seriously at the efficiency arguments.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,340
    Doesn't seem to have been a huge amount of news from Iran overnight. Of course getting 'news' out is becoming more and more difficult. However the President was supposed to address the nation.

    As for the media coverage, here is Simon (GB News) Schama:

    https://x.com/simon_schama/status/2010074166259834914

    'Yes, and I still don't understand (or maybe I do) the grudging embarrassment, of the main media, the shifty, pursed lip minimisation; the milquetoast euphemisms - when even without internet; with no press on ground and with outcome uncertain it is blindingly obvious this is one of the great historical moments of this century; grounded as it is in an idea we are supposed to cherish and unapologetically shout from the rooftops - FREEDOM - mass bravery in facing down murderous theocratic tyranny.'

    Now Simon is known for a bit of hyperbole....
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,655
    BlancheLivermore said:

    @MattW re Knutsford; is Canewdon in Essex also in the North?

    I think I said that Knutsford (I think that Gnutsford would be more fun :wink:) was more the South-like of the two.

    I'm happy to call Canewdon South as it is south of the Blackwater Estuary, which is a favourite place of mine. Though I'll give you East as well, if you like !!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,655
    Dura_Ace said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Treat yourself.

    https://www.historicaracewear.com/products/copy-of-classic-stringback-driving-gloves-black
    IAM :smile:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYNH0DOs7Ks
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,904
    FF43 said:

    NickPalmer said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.

    As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.

    I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
    No system is bug-free, but I've yet to see proof that jury trials produce a more accurate result, whereas the delay in trials is certainly a major snag.
    I think juries play an essential role in the democratisation of justice. In controversial cases they can on the facts let unpopular defendants go free (eg someone accused of paedophilia for which the evidence is lacking). They can also convict popular defendants. A good example of this is Lucy Letby. The jury decided on the evidence she was guilty despite a campaign to free her (I'm not making a comment on the quality of the evidence). In either case their decision is respected by the public, when it might not be when made by a judge.

    In non controversial cases (big majority I suspect) I doubt the quality of their decisions is better than systems with magistrates or lay assessors. If it costs several times more to have a jury trial and at the same time trials aren't being processed due to capacity and funding, I think you need to seriously at the efficiency arguments.
    Article on the system in Norway where mixed courts of one judge and two lay assessors try most cases

    https://droit.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2001-1-page-225?lang=en
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,797
    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,764
    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    The US is getting ever closer to civil war. This is the Sheriff in Minnesota yesterday: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/philadelphia-sheriff-rips-ice-as-fake-law-enforcement-after-minnesota-shooting/vi-AA1TU7uI?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover

    She says: “Law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE, probably Trump’s new army to attack citizens of the United States...no law enforcement professional wears a mask. None.” She goes on to say, “Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles...Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles invoking action that is illegal.”

    It would seem all too likely we are going to see armed stand offs between local law enforcement and ICE agents in the following days.

    It's worth noting that the ICE man who killed the mum was a 9 year veteran, not one of the new batch.

    That hints at a deeper problem than ICE being Trump's newly recruited goon army.
    So how many people has this 'deeper problem' ICE killed in that nine years ?

    The more fundamental issue is do people want laws to be upheld and regulations enforced strongly, weakly or not at all.

    We saw a similar issue under the Biden administration with its attempt to recruit a 'goon army' of IRS employees.

    Likewise Musk and his 'goon army' of DOGE activists.

    The process of change between weak enforcement and strong enforcement is always going to have difficulties.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,427
    JohnLilburne said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
    Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,231
    Fishing said:

    I just got back from a couple of months in the US, mostly LA, mainly business but also seeing old friends (and making a few new ones). Obviously the affluent parts of LA are about as typical of the US as Kensington is of the UK, but my observations may nevertheless be of some interest:

    - Obviously there’s real hatred of the Trump administration in California, but there is no corresponding enthusiasm for the Democrats as a party or for individual Democrats, which augurs well for 2026, but very poorly for 2028 (though of course very early days)
    - As ever the truly goldfish-like attention span of the American voter is evidence the moment you start talking to anybody – they’ll mention the latest outage, but then two weeks later that’s completely forgotten and there’s another one everybody talks about
    - Food prices are just as outrageous as ever, but what is more noticeable this time is the increase in items, like electronics, which were previously a reasonable deal in America. Presumably that’s the tariffs, since most such is made in China, as well as the generalised rise in prices.
    - The US radical right’s propaganda about the immigration situation here has had considerable influence, even amongst the left, with many believing the bizarre Musk-Trump-Leon parody of the situation in Islamic Caliphate of Al-Britain
    - There seems no awareness of the massive fiscal cliff that the US is facing at some point in the medium term, with the government running a huge, unsustainable budget deficit, or concern that somebody will have to pay for closing it eventually
    - The ICE raids in LA caused a brief stir but seem to have faded from public consciousness, and were very localised. But it certainly had a chilling effect amongst my Latino friends, though none were directly affected
    - On the other hand the Pacific Pallisades fires from a year ago are still very much in the public consciousness. Most people know at least somebody who was affected in some way
    - Nobody mentioned Ukraine spontaneously, though when I brought it up, there was considerable support for the country’s heroic struggle. But no real interest or enthusiasm, and Putin’s frequent nuclear bluster has clearly had at least some effect

    That all sounds rather negative so let me say that the natural friendliness and hospitality of my American friends and of most strangers in the street has survived even Trump. Being English still makes one slightly exotic, and politeness and courtesy are still almost invariably answered with the same. So those who discount America as a travel destination are certainly missing out.

    Did anyone wonder how you managed to get out of the Islamic Caliphate of the UK without getting shot by the Sharia border police and whether you will be shot on your return for visiting the Great Satan without permission?

  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,655
    edited January 11
    Roger said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Roger said:

    Time to call up Private Eye's Apocalypse correspondent Hellena Handcart.........

    You have to hand it to the last Tory administration they left the nation ungovernable as we will also see with the advent of a Reform government next time around, but this Government have fallen into every bear trap the Tories set for them and they have even fallen into some of their own.

    Starmer needs to be sat down and told the home truth that as Prime Minister he just isn't very good. And unlike similarly qualified Tory Prime Ministers he has no tame Newspaper Editors to hide behind.

    For the love of God- go man!
    Blair who is the best template for a Labour leader used the well tried formula of testing public opinion and then giving them what they wanted or at worst making sure he didn't force on them what they didn't want. Abracadabra we had a Party who shared the values of the rest of us.

    How big a department Philip Gould had I have no idea but it should have been Starmer's starting point. If you don't test public opinion-and thar doesn't mean reading the Daily Mail- you can't take the public with you

    Yesterday I heard that Starmer had U-turned 12 times in a year and a half
    I heard that as "12 Uturns of Christmas" on GBNews:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvNiVmJZnZ0

    (Offered without comment.)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,231
    JohnLilburne said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
    If you have to stop at a roundabout there is an unbroken stop line.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,650
    FrankBooth said:

    Doesn't seem to have been a huge amount of news from Iran overnight. Of course getting 'news' out is becoming more and more difficult. However the President was supposed to address the nation.

    As for the media coverage, here is Simon (GB News) Schama:

    https://x.com/simon_schama/status/2010074166259834914

    'Yes, and I still don't understand (or maybe I do) the grudging embarrassment, of the main media, the shifty, pursed lip minimisation; the milquetoast euphemisms - when even without internet; with no press on ground and with outcome uncertain it is blindingly obvious this is one of the great historical moments of this century; grounded as it is in an idea we are supposed to cherish and unapologetically shout from the rooftops - FREEDOM - mass bravery in facing down murderous theocratic tyranny.'

    Now Simon is known for a bit of hyperbole....

    The MSM have no-one on the ground and have just had a major kicking for relying on in-country reports from those with a vested interest in Gaza.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,514
    Dura_Ace said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Treat yourself.

    https://www.historicaracewear.com/products/copy-of-classic-stringback-driving-gloves-black
    @Dura_Ace it is funny you should mention that. I have never worn gloves while driving but I took the Cobra out on 23 Dec and it was f**king cold and I really needed some driving gloves. Might treat myself. :wink:
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,650
    JohnLilburne said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
    The problem comes when car 2 sees a massive gap at the same time car 1 drops the knitting, which results in a rear-end collision. But yes, there is an obvious compromise: include the car in front in your scan.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.

    He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.

    He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
    Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
    The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,037
    kjh said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Treat yourself.

    https://www.historicaracewear.com/products/copy-of-classic-stringback-driving-gloves-black
    @Dura_Ace it is funny you should mention that. I have never worn gloves while driving but I took the Cobra out on 23 Dec and it was f**king cold and I really needed some driving gloves. Might treat myself. :wink:
    Anti IAM vibes... https://gb.alpinestars.com/products/tech-1-zx-v4-gloves-black-anthracite
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    Dura_Ace said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    Treat yourself.

    https://www.historicaracewear.com/products/copy-of-classic-stringback-driving-gloves-black
    You'll be shocked to learn I still have my tan leather driving gloves which matched the tan pleather interior of my Tahiti Blue Triumph Stag.

    The gloves were clearly more reliable and durable than the Triumph Stag.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,637
    JohnLilburne said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
    About fifty years ago, a car bumped into mine from behind at a roundabout. I had hesitated to go but he had anticipated going and didn't look to see if I had gone as he was busy watching the car on the roundabout. He immediately said he was at fault and paid for the minor damage. By chance he was a solicitor. I felt slightly guilty which is why I still remember it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,454
    RIP Bob Weir.

    Presumably now grateful.

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,330
    bondegezou said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.

    If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
    Can’t they just come to PoliticalBetting.com instead?
    But not after the lager-shed.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,231
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    kjh said:

    Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.

    And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.

    I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
    The problem comes when car 2 sees a massive gap at the same time car 1 drops the knitting, which results in a rear-end collision. But yes, there is an obvious compromise: include the car in front in your scan.
    If the car immediately in front of you, and not driving into it whatever it does and however cautious the elderly lady in the Micra in occasional command of the steering wheel between her rows of knitting, is not your absolute first priority you are making a very big mistake. Rural Cumberland is a good place to practice.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,588
    Shuttered my personal Twitter account. Too many worms eating into my brain. Will just use my YouTube Twitter profile.

    Did have a brief look over at BlueSky. What a waste of time that place is...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    edited January 11
    Stuartinromford said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9el4dw0z3o

    He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.

    He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.

    He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
    Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
    The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
    And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.

    It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
    I'm not so sure about Fatch and Blair. Once it was over there were no comebacks*. Maybe Johnson?

    *Yes they made a bucketload of cash post premiership, but no encores.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,588
    DavidL said:

    The US is getting ever closer to civil war. This is the Sheriff in Minnesota yesterday: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/philadelphia-sheriff-rips-ice-as-fake-law-enforcement-after-minnesota-shooting/vi-AA1TU7uI?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover

    She says: “Law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE, probably Trump’s new army to attack citizens of the United States...no law enforcement professional wears a mask. None.” She goes on to say, “Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles...Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles invoking action that is illegal.”

    It would seem all too likely we are going to see armed stand offs between local law enforcement and ICE agents in the following days.

    Historians will note that the civil war had already started by this point. Declaring elected officials to be seditious traitors is pretty far out there as far as declaring fellow citizens to be your enemy is concerned.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,197
    IanB2 said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...

    Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.

    FPT..

    Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.

    On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.

    I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.

    I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.

    Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.

    In terms of performance she did OK, although she still seems too combative over the minor stuff which makes it hard to see her as a potential PM. The contradiction between her being the first major politician to come out in favour of the social media ban/age limit and her seeking to contrast the Tories with Labour and Reform in terms of not being "authoritarian" was glaring, but missed entirely by LK.
    Here's a question, though.

    Obviously, unchecked SM is bad for society. But what's the logic of the 16 years limit? Why not, to pluck a number from the air, 47?

    In broad terms, is it an alcohol-like issue or a rather stronger, more harmful, drug?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,362
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Shuttered my personal Twitter account. Too many worms eating into my brain. Will just use my YouTube Twitter profile.

    Did have a brief look over at BlueSky. What a waste of time that place is...

    Leon is that you?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,408
    No doubt been commented on, but the main take on the Kemi interview is the proposal to ban under-16s from social media:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wyeqw3gpo

    "Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said if her party was in government, smartphones would also be banned in schools."

    Looks like she is finally getting the gist of opposition after the success of the stamp duty announcement. Leading the news and all that.

    Anyone seriously against the proposal, which has been introduced by a Labour govt in Australia, and is supported by NASUWT here in UK? A bit of a move towards Tory patrician instincts and away from purist libertarianism. May be a useful wedge with Reform if they don't follow suit.

    Concern for Tories must be that the best you can say about polling is that their vote has stabilised - but still struggling to make even 20%.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026