"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
Yes, its only a *restriction* of ancient liberties - not a wholesale abolition - people are so f***ing touchy aren't they?
Well yes, it does seem so. Currently prosecutions are taking 4 years or longer to get to trial, which means that many of them fall apart because witnesses are lost contact with or their memory has faded, victims and accused have their lives put on hold, some are on remand for far longer than they'd be sentenced to if found guilty. That is unacceptable and it isn't a problem of Labour's making, it's the fault of the LDs and mainly the Conservatives, who did nothing to address it. Labour are trying to resolve the delays, I don't agree with their solution, I don't expect it will work, and I don't think a Judge was the right person to review the system and make recommendations. However, I think your objection is partisan rather than sincere. What would you propose to resolve the backlog?
The issue is there are too many moving parts and scheduling falls apart.
I forget the precise details but I believe a lot of the delay is down to the pre-sentence reports that are now required. They add an extra loop of court time that really isn’t necessary in most cases.
You also have issues with things like demanding translators and other limited services when they don’t necessarily need them plus the unwillingness to pay legal aid barristers a reasonable sum.
Basically the issue is that the treasury likes to run things at 103% capacity when they should really be running at 85% even if some spreadsheet somewhere says that’s inefficient
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Wellington, standing on top of a pile of dead Frenchmen.
Jack the ripper but with a different victim for each value
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
I find it hard to believe that vaping won't produce its own harvest of long term damage.
I am a supervisor on a project investigating just that (in the context of illegal highs in vapes). Will be interesting. I don’t believe vapes will be entirely harmless, but probably better than cigarettes.
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Elizabeth Fry
A proper local girl
Someone who made their name by appealling for humane treatment of prisoners.
Not the sort of thing that would get you on the currency nowadays.
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Jane Austen was £10 in my youth. Handel was the £50 (or at least someone with a big wig)
Yet again such a close fit between the views of Lab and LD voters. This happens on almost all issues. Do we really need both parties?
You think it's time for Labour to fold?
Lol no. But perhaps a friendly merger like you sometimes get in the corporate world. New bigger party called Confluence to capture the entire non-reactionary non-populist vote.
How about we take Liberal Democrat from the LibDems and from the Labour Party we could take Party?
I suppose what we could do is have the one party with two names depending on where it's standing. So up north it's Labour and in the home counties it's the Liberal Democrats. No rule against that afaik.
I'm more than happy for the Lib Dems to wither, losing members to the Greens
Zack Polanski's claim to have immediately apologised for saying that hypnosis could increase a woman's breast size has been thrown into doubt by a newly unearthed interview.
Before entering politics the Green Party leader worked as a hypnotherapist and offered a session in 2013 to enlarge a newspaper reporter's bust.
Polanski has since said he was misrepresented and never believed it was possible, claiming he spoke to the BBC the day after the article to apologise.
BBC News cannot find evidence of such an interview, but six days later he spoke to Radio Humberside to stand by the theory saying "the evidence is growing".
At least when it comes to the 2029 leaders' debates Polanski will be at home among the massive tits on stage alongside him.
Indeed...
It would be a huge shock if a Sun journalist had completely misrepresented the facts in a story. Zack should consider himself lucky he wasn't coerced into doing something illegal, shopped to the police and served jail time.
I doubt most LD members would go Green, they are now a party with almost as many oiks as Reform voters since Polanski has led them. LDs under Davey are closest to Starmer Labour with a few One Nation Tories at heart who have gone LD post Brexit
That reveals a breathtaking lack of understanding of the dynamics of political parties other than your own
No it does not.
Since the Coalition the LDs voter demographic has completely changed. Under Charles Kennedy they were the party of left of Labour, high tax and spend anti War voters. Those voters then went back to Labour under Ed Miliband in disgust at the LD coalition government with the Tories and voted with enthusiasm for Corbyn and now many even most of the have gone Green.
Since Brexit meanwhile many voters who voted Tory for Cameron and to a lesser extent May and were Remainers have gone LD, hence the average LD voter is now firmly centrist, indeed most of the seats they won in 2024 lean centre right if anything and normally used to elect Tory MPs. Starmer Labour meanwhile picked up some who voted Tory since 2010 in 2024 while it has leaked voters who backed Corbyn and Ed Miliband as above to the Greens.
The Tories meanwhile have leaked a lot of the voters Boris won in 2019 to Reform and having already leaked some Remainers to Labour and the LDs only the true hardcore Tories like me are still voting for the party under Kemi
You and me are polls apart but unlike you I vote conservative and back Kemi, not constantly trying to undermine her
Fine but you must recognise that the Conservatives are polling even lower than the 24% they got in 2024 which was in turn the lowest voteshare for the Conservative party at a general election in its history.
I backed Kemi's position on Iran this week and if the Tories do well in May I will be fully behind her
The reason was Johnson's abject premiership resulting in the Boriswave
And as for your last sentence that is simply pathetic - it's like saying I only support my football team if they win the league
No it wasn't, the Tories polled 30% when Boris resigned and of course it was Cleverly who reduced the Boriswave.
I have supported the Tories through general elections won and lost and never backed Blair like you did but even Kemi knows she has to see the Tories at least in the top 2 in May to survive
Of course she doesn't and you voted Plaid
History shows that Tory MPs are not dodos, if the polling and local election results show many of them heading for extinction they remove the leader
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
As I recall there was some discussion at the time as to whether a politician was appropriate, as previous historical figures had been apolitical*.
* yes, the Duke of Wellington had been on, but in his capacity as a soldier.
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Wellington, standing on top of a pile of dead Frenchmen.
You can’t put Wellington on a banknote. Glaswegians will be too busy putting traffic cones on top of their wallets.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
I find it hard to believe that vaping won't produce its own harvest of long term damage.
I am a supervisor on a project investigating just that (in the context of illegal highs in vapes). Will be interesting. I don’t believe vapes will be entirely harmless, but probably better than cigarettes.
Passive vaping has affected me much more than passive smoking.
Chelsea now losing 5-2. They have played well but PSG are frightening coming forward. Some outstanding goals. With City losing 3-0 that must be the worst European night for English clubs for many years.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
Depends on your fellow smokers, I had a colleague who put their resolve to quit down to the other person taking fag breaks
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Churchill is boring though. Cook Islands has a $3 bill showing a naked lady clutching a coconut as she rides a shark across the ocean. The story goes she drank rather too much of the coconut milk and relieved herself on the shark. Said shark was so literally pissed off that it tossed her into the ocean and she had to be rescued by another shark passing by.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
Depends on your fellow smokers, I had a colleague who put their resolve to quit down to the other person taking fag breaks
When my granddaughter was born 24 years ago my daughter told me I could not hold her if I continued to smoke
I stopped immediately and it was one of the hardest things I have done
I cannot stand cigarette or vaping smoke to this day
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Yet again such a close fit between the views of Lab and LD voters. This happens on almost all issues. Do we really need both parties?
You think it's time for Labour to fold?
Lol no. But perhaps a friendly merger like you sometimes get in the corporate world. New bigger party called Confluence to capture the entire non-reactionary non-populist vote.
How about we take Liberal Democrat from the LibDems and from the Labour Party we could take Party?
I suppose what we could do is have the one party with two names depending on where it's standing. So up north it's Labour and in the home counties it's the Liberal Democrats. No rule against that afaik.
I'm more than happy for the Lib Dems to wither, losing members to the Greens
Zack Polanski's claim to have immediately apologised for saying that hypnosis could increase a woman's breast size has been thrown into doubt by a newly unearthed interview.
Before entering politics the Green Party leader worked as a hypnotherapist and offered a session in 2013 to enlarge a newspaper reporter's bust.
Polanski has since said he was misrepresented and never believed it was possible, claiming he spoke to the BBC the day after the article to apologise.
BBC News cannot find evidence of such an interview, but six days later he spoke to Radio Humberside to stand by the theory saying "the evidence is growing".
At least when it comes to the 2029 leaders' debates Polanski will be at home among the massive tits on stage alongside him.
Indeed...
It would be a huge shock if a Sun journalist had completely misrepresented the facts in a story. Zack should consider himself lucky he wasn't coerced into doing something illegal, shopped to the police and served jail time.
I doubt most LD members would go Green, they are now a party with almost as many oiks as Reform voters since Polanski has led them. LDs under Davey are closest to Starmer Labour with a few One Nation Tories at heart who have gone LD post Brexit
That reveals a breathtaking lack of understanding of the dynamics of political parties other than your own
No it does not.
Since the Coalition the LDs voter demographic has completely changed. Under Charles Kennedy they were the party of left of Labour, high tax and spend anti War voters. Those voters then went back to Labour under Ed Miliband in disgust at the LD coalition government with the Tories and voted with enthusiasm for Corbyn and now many even most of the have gone Green.
Since Brexit meanwhile many voters who voted Tory for Cameron and to a lesser extent May and were Remainers have gone LD, hence the average LD voter is now firmly centrist, indeed most of the seats they won in 2024 lean centre right if anything and normally used to elect Tory MPs. Starmer Labour meanwhile picked up some who voted Tory since 2010 in 2024 while it has leaked voters who backed Corbyn and Ed Miliband as above to the Greens.
The Tories meanwhile have leaked a lot of the voters Boris won in 2019 to Reform and having already leaked some Remainers to Labour and the LDs only the true hardcore Tories like me are still voting for the party under Kemi
You and me are polls apart but unlike you I vote conservative and back Kemi, not constantly trying to undermine her
Fine but you must recognise that the Conservatives are polling even lower than the 24% they got in 2024 which was in turn the lowest voteshare for the Conservative party at a general election in its history.
I backed Kemi's position on Iran this week and if the Tories do well in May I will be fully behind her
The Labour Party has asked all MPs if we want to stand in the next General Election. I have confirmed that I wish to seek reselection as candidate for North Durham in the next General Election. I look forward to seeking endorsement as candidate from local CLP members and affiliates.
Chelsea now losing 5-2. They have played well but PSG are frightening coming forward. Some outstanding goals. With City losing 3-0 that must be the worst European night for English clubs for many years.
P6 W0 D2 L4 F6 A15.
I'd make that a very poor week.
2 out of 6 going through would be an achievement from here.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
I can vouch. Fag breaks do relieve stress. But the stress they relieve is that of not having had a fag for an hour.
Chelsea now losing 5-2. They have played well but PSG are frightening coming forward. Some outstanding goals. With City losing 3-0 that must be the worst European night for English clubs for many years.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
Yes, its only a *restriction* of ancient liberties - not a wholesale abolition - people are so f***ing touchy aren't they?
Well yes, it does seem so. Currently prosecutions are taking 4 years or longer to get to trial, which means that many of them fall apart because witnesses are lost contact with or their memory has faded, victims and accused have their lives put on hold, some are on remand for far longer than they'd be sentenced to if found guilty. That is unacceptable and it isn't a problem of Labour's making, it's the fault of the LDs and mainly the Conservatives, who did nothing to address it. Labour are trying to resolve the delays, I don't agree with their solution, I don't expect it will work, and I don't think a Judge was the right person to review the system and make recommendations. However, I think your objection is partisan rather than sincere. What would you propose to resolve the backlog?
The issue is there are too many moving parts and scheduling falls apart.
I forget the precise details but I believe a lot of the delay is down to the pre-sentence reports that are now required. They add an extra loop of court time that really isn’t necessary in most cases.
You also have issues with things like demanding translators and other limited services when they don’t necessarily need them plus the unwillingness to pay legal aid barristers a reasonable sum.
Basically the issue is that the treasury likes to run things at 103% capacity when they should really be running at 85% even if some spreadsheet somewhere says that’s inefficient
Pre-sentencing reports would be post-verdict and not on the critical path, the Judge can read them before / after court or in the breaks. The convicted prisoner would be remanded awaiting the reports and sentencing.
If the accused needs a translator, that would be arranged beforehand, there might be adjournments because a translator becomes unavailable but if you're on trial not in your first language then a translator is not a luxury, a basic tenet is the right to a fair trial, which means a right to understand fully what is being said.
There is definitely inefficiency in court preparation, both times there were adjournments for witness screens to be brought in. The professionals could be less verbose. My second stint, we got started about 11.30 on a Thursday, heard the opening statements, screen not prepared for 1st witness. Adjourn for lunch, and the week, Judge had something in the afternoon and Friday, Monday trooped in to court at 11am to be told by new Judge that original Judge had taken ill, so the case would have to be rescheduled but he'd felt the need to explain this to us in person blah blah blah. So nothing productive happening in that court with that Judge for the morning. Accused and plaintiff both having to wait months / years for another date, all for charges that based on the opening prosecution statement shouldn't have been brought.
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Wellington, standing on top of a pile of dead Frenchmen.
Make it into a series:
Wellington at Waterloo Nelson at Trafalgar Marlborough at Blenheim Henry V at Agincourt Edward III at Crecy etc etc.
The trouble is we would have to print many new denominations to get them all in ...
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Churchill is boring though. Cook Islands has a $3 bill showing a naked lady clutching a coconut as she rides a shark across the ocean. The story goes she drank rather too much of the coconut milk and relieved herself on the shark. Said shark was so literally pissed off that it tossed her into the ocean and she had to be rescued by another shark passing by.
Chelsea now losing 5-2. They have played well but PSG are frightening coming forward. Some outstanding goals. With City losing 3-0 that must be the worst European night for English clubs for many years.
P6 W0 D2 L4 F6 A15.
I'd make that a very poor week.
2 out of 6 going through would be an achievement from here.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Magna Carta established rates of scutage, but we don’t use those any more. Other clauses were about debts to Jews. So, yes, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial, but I don’t think there’s anything special about it being in the Magna Carta.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
If you're not racist then you shouldn't vote for a racist party. It's quite simple and if you think that a Reform govt would reverse the changes to jury trials, then so are you.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Magna Carta established rates of scutage, but we don’t use those any more. Other clauses were about debts to Jews. So, yes, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial, but I don’t think there’s anything special about it being in the Magna Carta.
OK, I mean, like, you focus on one passage of what I wrote to try and degrade what I say because deep down, you know what I say is right but as you're fundamentally a lefty you need to hone in on one thing to make you feel better and more comfortable about yourself and your own choices.
Well, OK. But nevertheless, you know everything I say is true, don't you???
Also, Magna Carta establishes a right to due process. Not an absolute right to a jury.
“NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.”
Iraqi channels are now reporting that “multiple tankers” are burning in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Basra, following a coordinated attack by Iran.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
If you're not racist then you shouldn't vote for a racist party. It's quite simple and if you think that a Reform govt would reverse the changes to jury trials, then so are you.
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
Churchill is boring though. Cook Islands has a $3 bill showing a naked lady clutching a coconut as she rides a shark across the ocean. The story goes she drank rather too much of the coconut milk and relieved herself on the shark. Said shark was so literally pissed off that it tossed her into the ocean and she had to be rescued by another shark passing by.
Iraqi channels are now reporting that “multiple tankers” are burning in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Basra, following a coordinated attack by Iran.
Trump declares victory and pulls out. But Iran continues. So does Bibi. What happens then?
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Magna Carta established rates of scutage, but we don’t use those any more. Other clauses were about debts to Jews. So, yes, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial, but I don’t think there’s anything special about it being in the Magna Carta.
OK, I mean, like, you focus on one passage of what I wrote to try and degrade what I say because deep down, you know what I say is right but as you're fundamentally a lefty you need to hone in on one thing to make you feel better and more comfortable about yourself and your own choices.
Well, OK. But nevertheless, you know everything I say is true, don't you???
I didn’t focus on one passage of what you wrote because I’m a lefty. I did it because I’m a pedant.
As I said, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial. My choices have not led to this change. I didn’t vote for this Labour government and indeed have never voted Labour in FPTP elections. (I have put Labour second in my mayoral vote.)
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Magna Carta established rates of scutage, but we don’t use those any more. Other clauses were about debts to Jews. So, yes, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial, but I don’t think there’s anything special about it being in the Magna Carta.
OK, I mean, like, you focus on one passage of what I wrote to try and degrade what I say because deep down, you know what I say is right but as you're fundamentally a lefty you need to hone in on one thing to make you feel better and more comfortable about yourself and your own choices.
Well, OK. But nevertheless, you know everything I say is true, don't you???
I didn’t focus on one passage of what you wrote because I’m a lefty. I did it because I’m a pedant.
As I said, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial. My choices have not led to this change. I didn’t vote for this Labour government and indeed have never voted Labour in FPTP elections. (I have put Labour second in my mayoral vote.)
same old tories, selling off the family silver and then complaining about the state of the dinner service
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
The problem of course is that if you start a war and do not finish it, and the other side continues to fight, then you still have a war, whether you want it or not. Operation Epic Fiasco does not seem to have taken this into account.
"Woman who falsely accused 10 men of raping her jailed
Greater Manchester Police said there was a "continuous, wilful making of false allegations" by Stacey Sharples, who knew "full well the consequences for each of the men involved"."
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
But did any juries find subpostmasters innocent? I know some had juries that found them guilty.
It cropped up often in the era of formal academic debate, when somebody published a paper and two people (the discussants) were formally picked to react to it. They didn't have to agree with it, just discuss it and make points. It's a format you don't see much these days, in this era of PowerPoints and questions from the audience.
Given the depth of feeling on the subject of trans, there was no way I could write an article that could satisfy everybody, but I could get discussants in to discuss it pro and con. I wanted two vs two but I couldn't get two gender critical people to commit, so I had to settle for one vs one, and I was lucky to get kyf_100 and Cyclefree in, both of which contributed long and closely argued pieces.
I don't know if people will *like* the final article, but hopefully it answers the question in a coherent and convincing manner. To quote somebody, I hope they find it interesting and informative.
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
I can vouch. Fag breaks do relieve stress. But the stress they relieve is that of not having had a fag for an hour.
A bloke I used to work with just couldn’t have that smokers were effectively getting an hour or more a day off just so they could go for a fag. It hadn’t occurred to me before, but he was right to be annoyed by it, a proper blag
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
I can vouch. Fag breaks do relieve stress. But the stress they relieve is that of not having had a fag for an hour.
A bloke I used to work with just couldn’t have that smokers were effectively getting an hour or more a day off just so they could go for a fag. It hadn’t occurred to me before, but he was right to be annoyed by it, a proper blag
Non smokers should be allowed a hour a day to post on PB instead.
Keir Starmer, you have allowed my party, the party of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle, Tony Benn to be dragged into the gutter by Mandelson, McSweeney, Simons & Labour Together. We need an independent inquiry into LT & its influence.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Keir Starmer, you have allowed my party, the party of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle, Tony Benn to be dragged into the gutter by Mandelson, McSweeney, Simons & Labour Together. We need an independent inquiry into LT & its influence.
Keir Starmer made Labour win an election. John led Labour to two defeats in a row (although in 2018 he wisely realised Salisbury had destroyed their chances).
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
There might be something in the comparison but there is a big fundamental difference. Cigarettes are a delivery mechanism for the drug (nicotine) which all smokers are addicted to and is why they smoke. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's a drug addiction. As such a smartphone, for a smoker, will never replace cigarettes. Not unless they design one that delivers nicotine into the bloodstream.
Keir Starmer, you have allowed my party, the party of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle, Tony Benn to be dragged into the gutter by Mandelson, McSweeney, Simons & Labour Together. We need an independent inquiry into LT & its influence.
Is this the same John McDonnell who promoted Jeremy Corbyn to LOTO and as such the Labour Party into the anti-Semitic gutter.
I did a pub quiz tonight and one team named themselves “From the river to the sea”.
Goodness me.
Maybe they are Cornish
It has the classic pub quiz outrage 'oooooh' factor when the team name is read out, but where us the 'quiz' themed pun, as in 'Quizz on my face' and 'The quizlamic extremists'?
"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones? The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.
Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax. All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course. An interesting perspective.
I can vouch. Fag breaks do relieve stress. But the stress they relieve is that of not having had a fag for an hour.
A bloke I used to work with just couldn’t have that smokers were effectively getting an hour or more a day off just so they could go for a fag. It hadn’t occurred to me before, but he was right to be annoyed by it, a proper blag
Ah but my job involved a lot of thinking and that's what I'd be doing on those fag breaks - thinking.
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
There might be something in the comparison but there is a big fundamental difference. Cigarettes are a delivery mechanism for the drug (nicotine) which all smokers are addicted to and is why they smoke. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's a drug addiction. As such a smartphone, for a smoker, will never replace cigarettes. Not unless they design one that delivers nicotine into the bloodstream.
Eejit
A smartphone - via stuff like social media - delivers dopamine hits. Likes, favourites, gossip, outrage, violence, fear, envy, sexual arousal
The mechanism is extremely similar, the smartphone is just a lot more sophisticated in the multifarious ways it gets you addicted. The fact you cannot see this says a lot, sadly
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
There's a change every few years for security reasons apparently.
Animals will be selected down to a short list by "experts" and then public will vote.
This avoids the public voting on masse for the dodo or gungan for example.
Iraqi channels are now reporting that “multiple tankers” are burning in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Basra, following a coordinated attack by Iran.
Trump declares victory and pulls out. But Iran continues. So does Bibi. What happens then?
Starmer declares war on both countries, and asks US for use of its air bases. Meanwhile Farage and Kemi are seen on a march and giving “give peace a chance” speeches in Hyde Park.
You know the FBI was convinced Iran was about to Nuke california - because of intercepted messages from the White House to Iran urging them to do so.
See you didn’t need Yokes this evening, I’ve answered everything you need to know.
I do not wish to trouble the PB mods and their lawyers so I will restrict myself to this observation
Putting together all the evidence from Mandygate, Embassy thing, Chagos weirdness, and many other peculiar behaviours by this Labour government, there is a very credible argument that some people, perhaps several or many people, have been compromised by the Chinese authorities - perhaps through money, or menaces, or both
And they may not be restricted to Labour, it has just become more obvious under Labour
Kapathy's autoresearch trick for gettings LLMs to train better ML models, incredibly simple, amazing results. About 75% of what too many ML PhDs have been doing has just been replaced.
I do not wish to trouble the PB mods and their lawyers so I will restrict myself to this observation
Putting together all the evidence from Mandygate, Embassy thing, Chagos weirdness, and many other peculiar behaviours by this Labour government, there is a very credible argument that some people, perhaps several or many people, have been compromised by the Chinese authorities - perhaps through money, or menaces, or both
And they may not be restricted to Labour, it has just become more obvious under Labour
While the influence of the Russian bogeymen has been overhyped, the operation of the Chinese state is underplayed. They have been playing the long game at everything. I was reading the other day how 3 companies now dominant all container production (with one basically being THE player) with a sideline in things like airbridges, all Chinese, all by playing the long game over the course of 30 years to win the whole thing.
Sat waiting for David Byrne to appear in Manchester.
On topic. The sad thing is the changes will not speed up justice and will only make miscarriages more common. As I said before. These changes will ruin lives and cost lives.
Are the Government on a Road to Nowhere?
They are certainly Slippery People who appear to be Burning Down the House.
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
There might be something in the comparison but there is a big fundamental difference. Cigarettes are a delivery mechanism for the drug (nicotine) which all smokers are addicted to and is why they smoke. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's a drug addiction. As such a smartphone, for a smoker, will never replace cigarettes. Not unless they design one that delivers nicotine into the bloodstream.
Eejit
A smartphone - via stuff like social media - delivers dopamine hits. Likes, favourites, gossip, outrage, violence, fear, envy, sexual arousal
The mechanism is extremely similar, the smartphone is just a lot more sophisticated in the multifarious ways it gets you addicted. The fact you cannot see this says a lot, sadly
Clueless shite from you as per. When I need a hit of nicotine it makes not the slightest difference whether I'm faffing around with a smartphone or not. Only nicotine will quell my craving for nicotine. Sure you can get addicted to your phone, that's obvious, but for a smoker it will be an additional addiction not a replacement.
Sat waiting for David Byrne to appear in Manchester.
On topic. The sad thing is the changes will not speed up justice and will only make miscarriages more common. As I said before. These changes will ruin lives and cost lives.
Are the Government on a Road to Nowhere?
They are certainly Slippery People who appear to be Burning Down the House.
Although in their favour, this time around they didn't go to war on the coattails of a Psycho Killer.
Keir Starmer, you have allowed my party, the party of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle, Tony Benn to be dragged into the gutter by Mandelson, McSweeney, Simons & Labour Together. We need an independent inquiry into LT & its influence.
I do not wish to trouble the PB mods and their lawyers so I will restrict myself to this observation
Putting together all the evidence from Mandygate, Embassy thing, Chagos weirdness, and many other peculiar behaviours by this Labour government, there is a very credible argument that some people, perhaps several or many people, have been compromised by the Chinese authorities - perhaps through money, or menaces, or both
And they may not be restricted to Labour, it has just become more obvious under Labour
While the influence of the Russian bogeymen has been overhyped, the operation of the Chinese state is underplayed. They have been playing the long game at everything. I was reading the other day how 3 companies now dominant all container production (with one basically being THE player) with a sideline in things like airbridges, all Chinese, all played the long game over the course of 30 years to win the game.
Yes
And consider how people scoffed at the idea that the UK liberal-left elite in the 30s-70s had been penetrated and compromised by Soviet Intel. At first it was "no one is guilty", then it was "ok well maybe a few posh bad apples", then it was revealed notable parts of the political-legal-media Establishment were in some way tainted
And the Chinese, I suspect, have been a lot smarter and subtler than the Soviets, and of late they have been hugely wealthier and better resourced
I do not wish to trouble the PB mods and their lawyers so I will restrict myself to this observation
Putting together all the evidence from Mandygate, Embassy thing, Chagos weirdness, and many other peculiar behaviours by this Labour government, there is a very credible argument that some people, perhaps several or many people, have been compromised by the Chinese authorities - perhaps through money, or menaces, or both
And they may not be restricted to Labour, it has just become more obvious under Labour
While the influence of the Russian bogeymen has been overhyped, the operation of the Chinese state is underplayed. They have been playing the long game at everything. I was reading the other day how 3 companies now dominant all container production (with one basically being THE player) with a sideline in things like airbridges, all Chinese, all played the long game over the course of 30 years to win the game.
Yes
And consider how people scoffed at the idea that the UK liberal-left elite in the 30s-70s had been penetrated and compromised by Soviet Intel. At first it was "no one is guilty", then it was "ok well maybe a few posh bad apples", then it was revealed notable parts of the political-legal-media Establishment were in some way tainted
And the Chinese, I suspect, have been a lot smarter and subtler than the Soviets, and of late they have been hugely wealthier and better resourced
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
There might be something in the comparison but there is a big fundamental difference. Cigarettes are a delivery mechanism for the drug (nicotine) which all smokers are addicted to and is why they smoke. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's a drug addiction. As such a smartphone, for a smoker, will never replace cigarettes. Not unless they design one that delivers nicotine into the bloodstream.
Eejit
A smartphone - via stuff like social media - delivers dopamine hits. Likes, favourites, gossip, outrage, violence, fear, envy, sexual arousal
The mechanism is extremely similar, the smartphone is just a lot more sophisticated in the multifarious ways it gets you addicted. The fact you cannot see this says a lot, sadly
Clueless shite from you as per. When I need a hit of nicotine it makes not the slightest difference whether I'm faffing around with a smartphone or not. Only nicotine will quell my craving for nicotine. Sure you can get addicted to your phone, that's obvious, but for a smoker it will be an additional addiction not a replacement.
You don't even understand the basics of the debate, which is very faintly amusing. Faintly
Kapathy's autoresearch trick for gettings LLMs to train better ML models, incredibly simple, amazing results. About 75% of what too many ML PhDs have been doing has just been replaced.
I think you'll find that despite a lot of on-the-ground evidence - it's just predicting the next token and is useless.
Kapathy's autoresearch trick for gettings LLMs to train better ML models, incredibly simple, amazing results. About 75% of what too many ML PhDs have been doing has just been replaced.
I think you'll find that despite a lot of on-the-ground evidence - it's just predicting the next token and is useless.
I have been experimenting with the idea, not for LLMs for other ML, its works incredibly well. It isn't that I couldn't come up with the changes it makes myself, its the fact, I just set it running for a 1-2 days and come back and it has done some smart things to pick better architecture / training scheduling and improved model performance significantly. This is the sort of things PhDs did manually for 3-6 months and wrote a paper on how they got 5% better scores on some benchmark. That has basically been automated away, or mostly automated away.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
For every horror from Donald Trump you are somehow able to reach back into history and find something from the Dems to compare it favourably with. It really is pretty impressive.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective. They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have. The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it. Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
There might be something in the comparison but there is a big fundamental difference. Cigarettes are a delivery mechanism for the drug (nicotine) which all smokers are addicted to and is why they smoke. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's a drug addiction. As such a smartphone, for a smoker, will never replace cigarettes. Not unless they design one that delivers nicotine into the bloodstream.
Eejit
A smartphone - via stuff like social media - delivers dopamine hits. Likes, favourites, gossip, outrage, violence, fear, envy, sexual arousal
The mechanism is extremely similar, the smartphone is just a lot more sophisticated in the multifarious ways it gets you addicted. The fact you cannot see this says a lot, sadly
Clueless shite from you as per. When I need a hit of nicotine it makes not the slightest difference whether I'm faffing around with a smartphone or not. Only nicotine will quell my craving for nicotine. Sure you can get addicted to your phone, that's obvious, but for a smoker it will be an additional addiction not a replacement.
You don't even understand the basics of the debate, which is very faintly amusing. Faintly
Lol, sure. Go and talk to your fossil. A meeting of the minds.
I do not wish to trouble the PB mods and their lawyers so I will restrict myself to this observation
Putting together all the evidence from Mandygate, Embassy thing, Chagos weirdness, and many other peculiar behaviours by this Labour government, there is a very credible argument that some people, perhaps several or many people, have been compromised by the Chinese authorities - perhaps through money, or menaces, or both
And they may not be restricted to Labour, it has just become more obvious under Labour
While the influence of the Russian bogeymen has been overhyped, the operation of the Chinese state is underplayed. They have been playing the long game at everything. I was reading the other day how 3 companies now dominant all container production (with one basically being THE player) with a sideline in things like airbridges, all Chinese, all by playing the long game over the course of 30 years to win the whole thing.
"They [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide." V. L
Western elites sold two centuries of manufacturing expertise for two generations of cheap labour.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
But did any juries find subpostmasters innocent? I know some had juries that found them guilty.
I think there was one early on in which an expert witness created enough doubt about horizon that the postmaster was acquitted. Lucky to get the right expert. Not really the Juries fault that the PO had a roster of experts prepared to mislead them.
At some point the missiles will stop, and presumably the appeal of Dubai for those who like that sort of thign will remain. There's too much at stake for the Emirates to undermine it long term.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective. They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have. The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it. Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
Whether it works or not it's not 'abolishing jury trials' and it's clearly part of a genuine attempt to unblock the CSJ. This is an area the public are little focused on. It'd be much easier, politically, to keep letting things slide, spend time and resource on things the voters care more about. That's been the Cons approach for years after all. Their negligence has led to the crisis in the system. That this government aren't following suit, are trying to do better, is to their credit.
Comments
I forget the precise details but I believe a lot of the delay is down to the pre-sentence reports that are now required. They add an extra loop of court time that really isn’t necessary in most cases.
You also have issues with things like demanding translators and other limited services when they don’t necessarily need them plus the unwillingness to pay legal aid barristers a reasonable sum.
Basically the issue is that the treasury likes to run things at 103% capacity when they should really be running at 85% even if some spreadsheet somewhere says that’s inefficient
All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course.
An interesting perspective.
Not the sort of thing that would get you on the currency nowadays.
* yes, the Duke of Wellington had been on, but in his capacity as a soldier.
NOW - Trump declares "we've won" the Iran War.
Personally, I'd go for weird endemic species, like the weevil that is found only on Lundy cabbage, that itself only grows on Lundy.
https://en.numista.com/300216
I stopped immediately and it was one of the hardest things I have done
I cannot stand cigarette or vaping smoke to this day
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Was that the actual moment she decided to u-turn?
Luke Akehurst
@lukeakehurst
The Labour Party has asked all MPs if we want to stand in the next General Election. I have confirmed that I wish to seek reselection as candidate for North Durham in the next General Election. I look forward to seeking endorsement as candidate from local CLP members and affiliates.
https://x.com/lukeakehurst/status/2031834275323232717
I'd make that a very poor week.
2 out of 6 going through would be an achievement from here.
The convicted prisoner would be remanded awaiting the reports and sentencing.
If the accused needs a translator, that would be arranged beforehand, there might be adjournments because a translator becomes unavailable but if you're on trial not in your first language then a translator is not a luxury, a basic tenet is the right to a fair trial, which means a right to understand fully what is being said.
There is definitely inefficiency in court preparation, both times there were adjournments for witness screens to be brought in.
The professionals could be less verbose.
My second stint, we got started about 11.30 on a Thursday, heard the opening statements, screen not prepared for 1st witness. Adjourn for lunch, and the week, Judge had something in the afternoon and Friday, Monday trooped in to court at 11am to be told by new Judge that original Judge had taken ill, so the case would have to be rescheduled but he'd felt the need to explain this to us in person blah blah blah.
So nothing productive happening in that court with that Judge for the morning.
Accused and plaintiff both having to wait months / years for another date, all for charges that based on the opening prosecution statement shouldn't have been brought.
Wellington at Waterloo
Nelson at Trafalgar
Marlborough at Blenheim
Henry V at Agincourt
Edward III at Crecy etc etc.
The trouble is we would have to print many new denominations to get them all in ...
It's quite simple and if you think that a Reform govt would reverse the changes to jury trials, then so are you.
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
1h
Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Then I see Epic Fury. I said, I like that name”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2031842083326079472
Well, OK. But nevertheless, you know everything I say is true, don't you???
“NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.”
Note the “or” towards the end.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/magna-carta-does-it-still-matter/ discusses this.
OSINTdefender
@sentdefender
Iraqi channels are now reporting that “multiple tankers” are burning in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Basra, following a coordinated attack by Iran.
Goodness me.
Have they got a nine-Bob note too?
What happens then?
As I said, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial. My choices have not led to this change. I didn’t vote for this Labour government and indeed have never voted Labour in FPTP elections. (I have put Labour second in my mayoral vote.)
He literally says in that clip, they gave me a big list of names for the operation, its was very boring, until I saw Epic Fury, that was the one.
Greater Manchester Police said there was a "continuous, wilful making of false allegations" by Stacey Sharples, who knew "full well the consequences for each of the men involved"."
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-who-falsely-accused-10-men-of-raping-her-jailed-13518288
Given the depth of feeling on the subject of trans, there was no way I could write an article that could satisfy everybody, but I could get discussants in to discuss it pro and con. I wanted two vs two but I couldn't get two gender critical people to commit, so I had to settle for one vs one, and I was lucky to get kyf_100 and Cyclefree in, both of which contributed long and closely argued pieces.
I don't know if people will *like* the final article, but hopefully it answers the question in a coherent and convincing manner. To quote somebody, I hope they find it interesting and informative.
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/what-have-we-lost-in-shift-from-cigarettes-to-smartphones/
Keir Starmer, you have allowed my party, the party of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle, Tony Benn to be dragged into the gutter by Mandelson, McSweeney, Simons & Labour Together. We need an independent inquiry into LT & its influence.
From the quizzer to the sea doesn't quite work.
A smartphone - via stuff like social media - delivers dopamine hits. Likes, favourites, gossip, outrage, violence, fear, envy, sexual arousal
The mechanism is extremely similar, the smartphone is just a lot more sophisticated in the multifarious ways it gets you addicted. The fact you cannot see this says a lot, sadly
No one batted an eyelid, plenty chuckled. More innocent times, indeed
You know the FBI was convinced Iran was about to Nuke california - because of intercepted messages from the White House to Iran urging them to do so.
See you didn’t need Yokes this evening, I’ve answered everything you need to know.
Putting together all the evidence from Mandygate, Embassy thing, Chagos weirdness, and many other peculiar behaviours by this Labour government, there is a very credible argument that some people, perhaps several or many people, have been compromised by the Chinese authorities - perhaps through money, or menaces, or both
And they may not be restricted to Labour, it has just become more obvious under Labour
And consider how people scoffed at the idea that the UK liberal-left elite in the 30s-70s had been penetrated and compromised by Soviet Intel. At first it was "no one is guilty", then it was "ok well maybe a few posh bad apples", then it was revealed notable parts of the political-legal-media Establishment were in some way tainted
And the Chinese, I suspect, have been a lot smarter and subtler than the Soviets, and of late they have been hugely wealthier and better resourced
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox8HVWjboww
They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have.
The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it.
Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
Western elites sold two centuries of manufacturing expertise for two generations of cheap labour.
🚨🇮🇷🇦🇪 BREAKING: Dubai's Creek Harbour hit.
One of the city's newest waterfront developments, residential towers, hotels, the Dubai Creek Tower construction site.
This is minutes from me, we felt the explosion
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2031870724093460723?s=20
Not really the Juries fault that the PO had a roster of experts prepared to mislead them.