But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
In my TTRPG campaign I did have the (Norse-themed) guards in a city break a thief's arms on that basis.
Former US pilot on Radio 5 suggesting that the Iranians have been gifted some Russin technology that was used in the shooting down of the US jet(s).
Another nail in Trump's coffin if that gets stood up.
Russia helping shoot down US planes.
Ukraine helping US allies from being hit by Iran.
Guess which country the US President prefers?
It really is quite mind-blowng the extent to which Russian propaganda has bent MAGA brains to the point where they give a pass to Putin being an ally of America's enemies.
WTF does it take to get these clowns supporting their own nation? I mean, Trump I can understand. He is shit scared of the kompromat piled up on him. But Billy Bob Redneck? What is in it for him?
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go the full Sharia and chop their hand off?
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
During the Coaltion, IIRC, they changed (for a while) bail conditions.
If you were bought up in front the magistrates for an offence when you were on bail for an offence you committed while on bail for the offence you committed while on bail….
The you didn’t get bail.
Some kinds of crime collapsed because the habitual offenders were getting warehoused.
Former US pilot on Radio 5 suggesting that the Iranians have been gifted some Russin technology that was used in the shooting down of the US jet(s).
Another nail in Trump's coffin if that gets stood up.
Russia helping shoot down US planes.
Ukraine helping US allies from being hit by Iran.
Guess which country the US President prefers?
It really is quite mind-blowng the extent to which Russian propaganda has bent MAGA brains to the point where they give a pass to Putin being an ally of America's enemies.
WTF does it take to get these clowns supporting their own nation? I mean, Trump I can understand. He is shit scared of the kompromat piled up on him. But Billy Bob Redneck? What is in it for him?
Feeling all superior and exceptional when Trump humiliates allies.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
My sympathies. I still think there needs to be a complete reworking of ankle tags managed by AI. You rob a shop, you are tagged for a few years where you are only allowed a route to work and home. If you go outside of that route it’s starts screeching. You cannot walk into a shop or a pub without being ejected immediately. It allows people to work and be home not prison but stops them from being a blight on society. If your alarm goes off it gets sent up a chain to a human who then authorises a stint in prison.
Put some electrical device on them that gives them 500 volts when they open a shop door and make it AC.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go the full Sharia and chop their hand off?
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
I hadn't been paying much attention to the huge marmalade "scandal", but AFAICS it seems that a conserve labelled "orange marmalade" can remain labelled "orange marmalade" (or "lime marmalade", etc).
It just can't be labelled "marmalade"
That's it.
Brexiteers seem to be inventing problems, essentially caused by Brexit, which aren't really problems at all.
Are they entirely sane ?
How is this caused by Brexit when it is EU rules which apply across the EU? If we had remained in the EU this would still be exactly the same.
The troubling issue of Marmaladegate and its relation to WWIII and the Express suffering a nuclear winter.
The interesting line in the BBC account seems to be this:
But the UK government has now revealed the updated marmalade decree is among 76 updated EU food-related laws that will apply in England, Wales and Scotland too if its wider food deal is agreed.
Which raises a question. When exporting to the EU from GB, their rules apply. If they want sausage labelled as 'high fat offal tube' or My Little Pony stickers to have a particular sort of gum on the back, that is what you do. That's how trade works.
The interesting bit is that rules about whether you can label sardine and chocolate spread as 'marmalade' appear to start applying here. This does not trouble me as I think we should be in the single market. But it is not obvious why, given current Labour policy, the EU rules should apply to marmalade made, labelled and sold in the UK.
The Express and Mail will soon have reports on how our bananas will be compelled to bend to the right but not the left or something, and Reform will win 647 seats on a promise to send a gunboat to the quince marmalade farms of Portugal.
(NB and when our SC makes a ruling on marmalade contrary to, say, an ECJ ruling on Belgian marmalade, who mediates that particular dilemma?)
All that’s changing is marmalade being prefixed by citrus .
Maybe we’ll have the marmalade martyrs a bit like the metric martyrs ! If some Leavers are being traumatised by this then they need to find a life !
In German, "Marmelade" is used for any kind of fruit jam, and people are horrified when they discover that such a thing could be bitter. Yeah, I know, clearly the sort of cultural difference that justifies Brexit.
All that’s changing is marmalade being prefixed by citrus .
Maybe we’ll have the marmalade martyrs a bit like the metric martyrs ! If some Leavers are being traumatised by this then they need to find a life !
In German, "Marmelade" is used for any kind of fruit jam, and people are horrified when they discover that such a thing could be bitter. Yeah, I know, clearly the sort of cultural difference that justifies Brexit.
I dunno about other people, but occasionally buying food that tastes differently from how I expected isn't a major problem in my life. Goes without saying that telling foreigners where to get off is the solution, though.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
just lock them in an outdoor shed for 3 days per offence , cheap and effective and stop all benefits immediately
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
My other thought is suspended sentences are weird. Why does the suspension only last for a year or two, surely they should be active for a minimum of 5-10 years, longer if any violence involved?
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
Your comment is 100% clear about the EU's right to demand labelling (and all other) rules for anyone exporting into the EU from outside. That's how trade works. The interesting bit is that it appears to apply to stuff produced and sold within Great Britain. Why? How? Who enforces and how?
If this is so - and the BBC report says it is - it is an interesting shift. From a populist point of view a central feature of Brexit was exactly that Great Britain could not have rules imposed and enforced on its entirely domestic activities from the EU.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go the full Sharia and chop their hand off?
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Ahem, on that last point, it's the Americans who are guilty of illogical floor numbering, not the (European) continentals!
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
Totally agreed on the ridiculous waiting times.
But twenty-four hours is too short for a defendant to receive all the evidence against them and prepare a defence. And there should be an option for trial by jury for all offences.
Organising a jury trial doesn't have to take a year. In 1952 Derek Bentley was arrested for murder on 2 November and tried at the Old Bailey between 9 and 11 December.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go the full Sharia and chop their hand off?
Former US pilot on Radio 5 suggesting that the Iranians have been gifted some Russin technology that was used in the shooting down of the US jet(s).
Another nail in Trump's coffin if that gets stood up.
Russia helping shoot down US planes.
Ukraine helping US allies from being hit by Iran.
Guess which country the US President prefers?
It really is quite mind-blowng the extent to which Russian propaganda has bent MAGA brains to the point where they give a pass to Putin being an ally of America's enemies.
WTF does it take to get these clowns supporting their own nation? I mean, Trump I can understand. He is shit scared of the kompromat piled up on him. But Billy Bob Redneck? What is in it for him?
It is one reason why support for the traitor president is falling off a cliff.... 56-44 Dem Senate majority?
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
The BBC report is clear that it applies domestically, and that there are others.
But the UK government has now revealed the updated marmalade decree is among 76 updated EU food-related laws that will apply in England, Wales and Scotland too if its wider food deal is agreed.
I hadn't been paying much attention to the huge marmalade "scandal", but AFAICS it seems that a conserve labelled "orange marmalade" can remain labelled "orange marmalade" (or "lime marmalade", etc).
It just can't be labelled "marmalade"
That's it.
Brexiteers seem to be inventing problems, essentially caused by Brexit, which aren't really problems at all.
Are they entirely sane ?
How is this caused by Brexit when it is EU rules which apply across the EU? If we had remained in the EU this would still be exactly the same.
Because if we'd still been a member, it's at least reasonably unlikely to have gone through.
Pre-Brexit we would have had influence over decisions which affect us, and will continue to affect us as a non-member. The performative outrage from people like Patel over something utterly trivial just serves to remind us of that, and also just how ridiculous are some Brexiteers.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Ahem, on that last point, it's the Americans who are guilty of illogical floor numbering, not the (European) continentals!
Oops! Yes you are right. I was getting confused because I was recently in an Asian country that calls the ground floor the first.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
Totally agreed on the ridiculous waiting times.
But twenty-four hours is too short for a defendant to receive all the evidence against them and prepare a defence. And there should be an option for trial by jury for all offences.
Organising a jury trial doesn't have to take a year. In 1952 Derek Bentley was arrested for murder on 2 November and tried at the Old Bailey between 9 and 11 December.
Why? It is pretty straightforward and obvious when there is cctv. Have mobile judges who go to the shop, interview the shop staff, accused, police and watch the cctv. They could then either find guilty and sentence, acquit, or if things arent clear (<5% cases Id suspect) recommend a longer trial at a later date.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Having two sets of rules (one for domestically sold products and one for exported products) is more complicated for the industry. It’s simpler to just have one set of rules.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
Totally agreed on the ridiculous waiting times.
But twenty-four hours is too short for a defendant to receive all the evidence against them and prepare a defence. And there should be an option for trial by jury for all offences.
Organising a jury trial doesn't have to take a year. In 1952 Derek Bentley was arrested for murder on 2 November and tried at the Old Bailey between 9 and 11 December.
Good luck with that one. In 1952 there was no PACE provision, no electronic and digital data, mobile phones, and very limited forensics.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
Totally agreed on the ridiculous waiting times.
But twenty-four hours is too short for a defendant to receive all the evidence against them and prepare a defence. And there should be an option for trial by jury for all offences.
Organising a jury trial doesn't have to take a year. In 1952 Derek Bentley was arrested for murder on 2 November and tried at the Old Bailey between 9 and 11 December.
I'd be inclined to permit non-criminal punishments akin to Penalty Charge Notices you get for speeding.
The accused has the right to appeal as with PCNs, but if identified the default is you pay [X] fine and have points against your name. For repeat offences you are taken to court to be criminally charged with the prospect of more severe punishments.
It means low level offenders get speedy punishment that is high enough to be painful but low enough to not warrant appealing if they're dead to rights.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Having two sets of rules (one for domestically sold products and one for exported products) is more complicated for the industry. It’s simpler to just have one set of rules.
Also, Northern Ireland.
Orange marmalade is only popular in certain communities in Northern Ireland.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to reduce costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in itself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
The BBC report is clear that it applies domestically, and that there are others.
But the UK government has now revealed the updated marmalade decree is among 76 updated EU food-related laws that will apply in England, Wales and Scotland too if its wider food deal is agreed.
The current workaround was the "Not for EU" label. That's proving to be as popular as my attempt to make tripe-flavoured Easter eggs a thing.
Which takes us back to the underlying problem. The reason for wanting an EU reset (and most of the public do) is that the status quo is unpopular. Unfortunately, the reset is also going to cost in the sense of the UK having to do stuff that isn't popular.
(The ultimate irony being that marmalade was something where the UK got its way whilst it was a member; the definition of marmalade was the British one. Once we left, there wasn't much reason for or continental friends to stick to that.)
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to avoid costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
I think there’s an expression for this about who has all the cards.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to reduce costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
On the other hand, we've been able (aided by good stances on both sides of the political aisle) to give to Ukraine without having to appease the likes of Hungary and Slovakia into agreeing. I believe those two countries are threatening to hold up the latest funds/military gear for Ukraine.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
Your comment is 100% clear about the EU's right to demand labelling (and all other) rules for anyone exporting into the EU from outside. That's how trade works. The interesting bit is that it appears to apply to stuff produced and sold within Great Britain. Why? How? Who enforces and how?
If this is so - and the BBC report says it is - it is an interesting shift. From a populist point of view a central feature of Brexit was exactly that Great Britain could not have rules imposed and enforced on its entirely domestic activities from the EU.
This is about loads more than marmalade.
AFAIK the reason is that to move Brexit along, T May agreed that all EU legislation applying at that time would be rolled over into UK law. The belief was that there would be plenty of parliamentary time to take out EU laws that were not applicable and would be replaced by UK specific laws.
The main law being applied is the Law of Unintended Conse-quinces
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to avoid costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
I think there’s an expression for this about who has all the cards.
I've never understood this, surely Boris and Nigel are clearly cards? Or have the EU redefined the meaning of cards too now?
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Having two sets of rules (one for domestically sold products and one for exported products) is more complicated for the industry. It’s simpler to just have one set of rules.
Also, Northern Ireland.
Orange marmalade is only popular in certain communities in Northern Ireland.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
Fair enough. Otherwise it would be like expecting the EU to retain English as an official language when the UK isn't a member.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
just lock them in an outdoor shed for 3 days per offence , cheap and effective and stop all benefits immediately
I think a lot of shoplifting is done to fund drug habits with a "fence" selling the stolen goods.
We might do better by a proper drug treatment policy, something like the Portuguese system of decriminalisation, and civil penalties of treatment orders.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
just lock them in an outdoor shed for 3 days per offence , cheap and effective and stop all benefits immediately
I think a lot of shoplifting is done to fund drug habits with a "fence" selling the stolen goods.
We might do better by a proper drug treatment policy, something like the Portuguese system of decriminalisation, and civil penalties of treatment orders.
The most worrying thing about it is that Russia won't be all that far behind Ukrainian developments.
Forget Russia, within a year or two, armies will be letting AI drive those robots and deciding which humans to kill. We are recreating Terminator and there is no John Connor or timeloop to save us.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
The BBC report is clear that it applies domestically, and that there are others.
But the UK government has now revealed the updated marmalade decree is among 76 updated EU food-related laws that will apply in England, Wales and Scotland too if its wider food deal is agreed.
The current workaround was the "Not for EU" label. That's proving to be as popular as my attempt to make tripe-flavoured Easter eggs a thing.
Which takes us back to the underlying problem. The reason for wanting an EU reset (and most of the public do) is that the status quo is unpopular. Unfortunately, the reset is also going to cost in the sense of the UK having to do stuff that isn't popular.
(The ultimate irony being that marmalade was something where the UK got its way whilst it was a member; the definition of marmalade was the British one. Once we left, there wasn't much reason for or continental friends to stick to that.)
Currently insoluble is that it is unpopular to be in the EU and unpopular to be out of it. In essence this is because the EU attempts to be a political project of union and a trade project of a free internal market, which, by free movement of people elides the trade and the poltical project.
Out of it we have a trade problem, inside it we have a political problem. EFTA remains the best, though imperfect, option.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
just lock them in an outdoor shed for 3 days per offence , cheap and effective and stop all benefits immediately
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to avoid costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
I think there’s an expression for this about who has all the cards.
I think this is an example of level playing field rather than EU having a stronger negotiating position. Marmalade is trivial so it might not work as an example. The EU wants to avoid the UK doing its own regulation, so giving its own producers an advantage over imports. Say "Marmalade" sells better in the UK than "Citrus marmalade" then EU exporters are at a disadvantage in the UK if their own producers need to call it "Citrus marmalade" under their own regulation. A trivial example, but there will be other regulation where it matters.
If you don't have common regulation, you need expensive compliance checks at the border. The government aims to reduce some of the export costs introduced by Brexit.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
How much of than is actually mandated by law, and how much by her employer's desire to avoid litigation ?
I think most of it is from the employer. But the fact they are so worried about litigation is enough to make the situation untenable.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
That isn't really true, most shoplifters will get community service or a fine at least. Though they are only likely to get jail time if the value of the goods stolen is £1,000 or more and there was use of coercion or force
The response to events in Clapham earlier in the week and to the comments of the M&S retail director, one Thinus Keeve, only show how little actual serious response there is to all of this.
The truth was this was an organised group (mob if you like) of several dozen young people who swept down Clapham High Street and terrorised a number of shops. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by social media and the Police response, as shown on CCTV, looked what it was - inadequate.
For all the moaning about Sadiq Khan, no force could mobilise the numbers required that quickly.
Oddly enough, there are plenty of people decrying the end of the "Internet" as a forum for free speech and expression in a period of tightening Government control and legislation yet only supervision (even if it were possible) could have prevented what happened.
The other side of this are the addicts in East Ham High Street who routinely go into shops and steal food and drink. We are told staff in the stores have strict instructions to basically let it happen (much like TfL staff). There are aspects of that which need challenging and a debate about how much we should allow or encourage intervention by staff (only properly trained staff naturally). Tesco can afford to lose a tin of beans and a bottle of whisky while TfL can cope with the odd evader but at what point does it become endemic and if and when it does how do we or ought we to respond?
Dealing with a couple of desperate individuals is one thing - dealing with a mob of dozens something entirely different.
On the other side, there's the wider issue about the security and surveillance State and the degree to which, for example, Government monitoring of social media is acceptable or desirable in terms of crime prevention - we know it is used as a counter terrorist mechanism for example.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
How much of than is actually mandated by law, and how much by her employer's desire to avoid litigation ?
I think most of it is from the employer. But the fact they are so worried about litigation is enough to make the situation untenable.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
That isn't really true, most shoplifters will get community service or a fine at least. Though they are only likely to get jail time if the value of the goods stolen is £1,000 or more and there was use of coercion or force
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
Why not go further and introduce sharia law?
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
Everyone focuses on the penalty.
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
just lock them in an outdoor shed for 3 days per offence , cheap and effective and stop all benefits immediately
3 days pegged out on a Scottish moor.
Naked.
In midge season.
That'll be deterrent enough!
Chopping off hands and life in prison are completely reasonable ideas, but that's beyond the pale.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
Fair enough. Otherwise it would be like expecting the EU to retain English as an official language when the UK isn't a member.
English is also a co-official language in Ireland and Malta and 73% of Cypriots also speak English highly proficiently.
The response to events in Clapham earlier in the week and to the comments of the M&S retail director, one Thinus Keeve, only show how little actual serious response there is to all of this.
The truth was this was an organised group (mob if you like) of several dozen young people who swept down Clapham High Street and terrorised a number of shops. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by social media and the Police response, as shown on CCTV, looked what it was - inadequate.
For all the moaning about Sadiq Khan, no force could mobilise the numbers required that quickly.
Oddly enough, there are plenty of people decrying the end of the "Internet" as a forum for free speech and expression in a period of tightening Government control and legislation yet only supervision (even if it were possible) could have prevented what happened.
The other side of this are the addicts in East Ham High Street who routinely go into shops and steal food and drink. We are told staff in the stores have strict instructions to basically let it happen (much like TfL staff). There are aspects of that which need challenging and a debate about how much we should allow or encourage intervention by staff (only properly trained staff naturally). Tesco can afford to lose a tin of beans and a bottle of whisky while TfL can cope with the odd evader but at what point does it become endemic and if and when it does how do we or ought we to respond?
Dealing with a couple of desperate individuals is one thing - dealing with a mob of dozens something entirely different.
On the other side, there's the wider issue about the security and surveillance State and the degree to which, for example, Government monitoring of social media is acceptable or desirable in terms of crime prevention - we know it is used as a counter terrorist mechanism for example.
Re Clapham, can someone please offer a link to SKS's speech of outrage and retribution? I'm afraid I missed it.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to reduce costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
On the other hand, we've been able (aided by good stances on both sides of the political aisle) to give to Ukraine without having to appease the likes of Hungary and Slovakia into agreeing. I believe those two countries are threatening to hold up the latest funds/military gear for Ukraine.
Exactly as individual EU members do. What's being held up is the EU loan.
It will be interesting to watch how that one plays out.
The response to events in Clapham earlier in the week and to the comments of the M&S retail director, one Thinus Keeve, only show how little actual serious response there is to all of this.
The truth was this was an organised group (mob if you like) of several dozen young people who swept down Clapham High Street and terrorised a number of shops. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by social media and the Police response, as shown on CCTV, looked what it was - inadequate.
For all the moaning about Sadiq Khan, no force could mobilise the numbers required that quickly.
Oddly enough, there are plenty of people decrying the end of the "Internet" as a forum for free speech and expression in a period of tightening Government control and legislation yet only supervision (even if it were possible) could have prevented what happened.
The other side of this are the addicts in East Ham High Street who routinely go into shops and steal food and drink. We are told staff in the stores have strict instructions to basically let it happen (much like TfL staff). There are aspects of that which need challenging and a debate about how much we should allow or encourage intervention by staff (only properly trained staff naturally). Tesco can afford to lose a tin of beans and a bottle of whisky while TfL can cope with the odd evader but at what point does it become endemic and if and when it does how do we or ought we to respond?
Dealing with a couple of desperate individuals is one thing - dealing with a mob of dozens something entirely different.
On the other side, there's the wider issue about the security and surveillance State and the degree to which, for example, Government monitoring of social media is acceptable or desirable in terms of crime prevention - we know it is used as a counter terrorist mechanism for example.
With this sort of unrestricted criminality, we see a society descending towards Hobbes' State of Nature.
I suspect that the majority of people who want to live in a safe, law abiding environment would be happy for a bit more state surveillance if it could put an end to the problem.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
Fair enough. Otherwise it would be like expecting the EU to retain English as an official language when the UK isn't a member.
English is also a co-official language in Ireland and Malta and 73% of Cypriots also speak English highly proficiently.
Yes, but it was a decision for the remaining members, we had no right to expect it.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 1h The amount of kit being flown in on transport aircraft from the US mainland to the Middle East indicates preparations for operations are well underway.
If the Iranians capture that airman and parade him in Tehran, then say he is being held at an undisclosed military compound "do you want to risk bombing him, Trump? At that point Trump has his own Carter problem with Iran.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to reduce costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
On the other hand, we've been able (aided by good stances on both sides of the political aisle) to give to Ukraine without having to appease the likes of Hungary and Slovakia into agreeing. I believe those two countries are threatening to hold up the latest funds/military gear for Ukraine.
Exactly as individual EU members do. What's being held up is the EU loan.
It will be interesting to watch how that one plays out.
Unless he can organise some industrial scale vote-rigging in the next week, it's looking like Orban will be out on his arse by April 13.
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to avoid costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
I think there’s an expression for this about who has all the cards.
I think this is an example of level playing field rather than EU having a stronger negotiating position. Marmalade is trivial so it might not work as an example. The EU wants to avoid the UK doing its own regulation, so giving its own producers an advantage over imports. Say "Marmalade" sells better in the UK than "Citrus marmalade" then EU exporters are at a disadvantage in the UK if their own producers need to call it "Citrus marmalade" under their own regulation. A trivial example, but there will be other regulation where it matters.
If you don't have common regulation, you need expensive compliance checks at the border. The government aims to reduce some of the export costs introduced by Brexit.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 1h The amount of kit being flown in on transport aircraft from the US mainland to the Middle East indicates preparations for operations are well underway.
I hadn't been paying much attention to the huge marmalade "scandal", but AFAICS it seems that a conserve labelled "orange marmalade" can remain labelled "orange marmalade" (or "lime marmalade", etc).
It just can't be labelled "marmalade"
That's it.
Brexiteers seem to be inventing problems, essentially caused by Brexit, which aren't really problems at all.
Are they entirely sane ?
Rather, 'it can't just be labelled as "marmalade." Obviously if it's called orange marmalade it's still labelled as marmalade!
#pedanticbetting.com
It's Portuguese and should be made from quince...
The correct answer!
If we adopt this we'll all be rich as we'll be quince in.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
That does show that it is possible to arrest and convict shoplifters.
The problem is the punishment. Life incarceration would seem both harsh and expensive.
Good morning, everyone.
Confiscations/financial penalties might be the way to go. Doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, costs the perpetrator their widescreen TV.
Just break the buggers arms and they won't be able to nick for a few months
If the Iranians capture that airman and parade him in Tehran, then say he is being held at an undisclosed military compound "do you want to risk bombing him, Trump? At that point Trump has his own Carter problem with Iran.
THEN watch his popularity plummet.
Then he may have to deploy ground troops or at least special forces
A correction will appear in tomorrow's print edition: "A headline with an article on Friday about President Trump’s threats to leave NATO misstated the full name of the body. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, not the North American Treaty Organization." https://x.com/NYTimesPR/status/2040142477215056082
The headline and premise of the article: “A North American Treaty Organization without America?”
Former US pilot on Radio 5 suggesting that the Iranians have been gifted some Russin technology that was used in the shooting down of the US jet(s).
Another nail in Trump's coffin if that gets stood up.
Russia helping shoot down US planes.
Ukraine helping US allies from being hit by Iran.
Guess which country the US President prefers?
It really is quite mind-blowng the extent to which Russian propaganda has bent MAGA brains to the point where they give a pass to Putin being an ally of America's enemies.
WTF does it take to get these clowns supporting their own nation? I mean, Trump I can understand. He is shit scared of the kompromat piled up on him. But Billy Bob Redneck? What is in it for him?
But Billy Bob Redneck is a "low information voter" (ie thick as mince) and if you told him about what Russia was doing he wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. He would then dismiss it as "fake news" because he sadly doesn't have the critical faculty to think it through for himself.
The response to events in Clapham earlier in the week and to the comments of the M&S retail director, one Thinus Keeve, only show how little actual serious response there is to all of this.
The truth was this was an organised group (mob if you like) of several dozen young people who swept down Clapham High Street and terrorised a number of shops. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by social media and the Police response, as shown on CCTV, looked what it was - inadequate.
For all the moaning about Sadiq Khan, no force could mobilise the numbers required that quickly.
Oddly enough, there are plenty of people decrying the end of the "Internet" as a forum for free speech and expression in a period of tightening Government control and legislation yet only supervision (even if it were possible) could have prevented what happened.
The other side of this are the addicts in East Ham High Street who routinely go into shops and steal food and drink. We are told staff in the stores have strict instructions to basically let it happen (much like TfL staff). There are aspects of that which need challenging and a debate about how much we should allow or encourage intervention by staff (only properly trained staff naturally). Tesco can afford to lose a tin of beans and a bottle of whisky while TfL can cope with the odd evader but at what point does it become endemic and if and when it does how do we or ought we to respond?
Dealing with a couple of desperate individuals is one thing - dealing with a mob of dozens something entirely different.
On the other side, there's the wider issue about the security and surveillance State and the degree to which, for example, Government monitoring of social media is acceptable or desirable in terms of crime prevention - we know it is used as a counter terrorist mechanism for example.
With this sort of unrestricted criminality, we see a society descending towards Hobbes' State of Nature.
I suspect that the majority of people who want to live in a safe, law abiding environment would be happy for a bit more state surveillance if it could put an end to the problem.
I suspect so but State surveillance in all its forms doesn't come cheap or easy.
The Conservatives continue to witter on about recruiting more Police without explaining the basic issues of recruitment, equipment and training as well as accommodation following the large scale closure of operational stations instigated by, you guessed it, the Conservatives in the 2010s.
The other side of that is at what point does that surveillance move into outright intrusion (if it hasn't already). We know people will give upanything for a sense of safety and security and the usual response of Government to terrorist attacks has been to tighten surveillance, extend control further, curtail liberties a little more and all that is done in the name of "security".
Wifey is sick so I'm working in the shop. Well, video editing in the shop. Desperately hoping to get some time off this long weekend at some point as trying to remember the last day I had idle...
The response to events in Clapham earlier in the week and to the comments of the M&S retail director, one Thinus Keeve, only show how little actual serious response there is to all of this.
The truth was this was an organised group (mob if you like) of several dozen young people who swept down Clapham High Street and terrorised a number of shops. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by social media and the Police response, as shown on CCTV, looked what it was - inadequate.
For all the moaning about Sadiq Khan, no force could mobilise the numbers required that quickly.
Oddly enough, there are plenty of people decrying the end of the "Internet" as a forum for free speech and expression in a period of tightening Government control and legislation yet only supervision (even if it were possible) could have prevented what happened.
The other side of this are the addicts in East Ham High Street who routinely go into shops and steal food and drink. We are told staff in the stores have strict instructions to basically let it happen (much like TfL staff). There are aspects of that which need challenging and a debate about how much we should allow or encourage intervention by staff (only properly trained staff naturally). Tesco can afford to lose a tin of beans and a bottle of whisky while TfL can cope with the odd evader but at what point does it become endemic and if and when it does how do we or ought we to respond?
Dealing with a couple of desperate individuals is one thing - dealing with a mob of dozens something entirely different.
On the other side, there's the wider issue about the security and surveillance State and the degree to which, for example, Government monitoring of social media is acceptable or desirable in terms of crime prevention - we know it is used as a counter terrorist mechanism for example.
With this sort of unrestricted criminality, we see a society descending towards Hobbes' State of Nature.
I suspect that the majority of people who want to live in a safe, law abiding environment would be happy for a bit more state surveillance if it could put an end to the problem.
The problem isn't so much surveillance as the understanding of whose side the law is on. Shopkeepers know that if they physically prevent someone shiplifting, the law is as likely to side with the shoplifter as the shopkeeper.
The ludicrous fuss about "marmalade" rather indicates to me that Rejoin is a way off yet.
It makes the negotiations more difficult, for sure.
1. UK adopts the Euro - OK
2. UK troops under the command of Brussels - including outr nukes - fine
3. Annual membership fees - we'll wear £5bn
4 But citrus marmalade? Never! Never! Never!
Reminds me of a letter to Viz comic (might not remember this exactly but something like...) As a keen cyclist, I have visited the Netherlands three times. The first time, I forgot my water bottle and had to turn back after only a short ride. The second visit, I was knocked over by a car, resulting in a buckled wheel and a grazed knee. On the third visit, I forgot my cap and got very badly sunburnt. My experiences have convinced me that the sooner we leave the EU, the better!
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
Different countries have a word like “marmalade”, but mean somewhat different things by it. To ensure free trade, the EU, when the UK was in it, agreed some standards around what the word “marmalade” on a label should mean. These standards aligned with the British usage of the word.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
That doesn't explain/justify why purely domestic products should follow the EU rules, though. Or would products made solely for the UK use the term properly rather than the EU way?
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
Free circulation of goods, which is the government's aim to reduce costly cross border compliance, requires a single set of rules. These rules are dictated by the EU, now with no input from the UK. Previously the UK insisted on marmalade being marmalade but this was changed after Brexit.
Not a big deal in herself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
On the other hand, we've been able (aided by good stances on both sides of the political aisle) to give to Ukraine without having to appease the likes of Hungary and Slovakia into agreeing. I believe those two countries are threatening to hold up the latest funds/military gear for Ukraine.
Exactly as individual EU members do. What's being held up is the EU loan.
It will be interesting to watch how that one plays out.
Unless he can organise some industrial scale vote-rigging in the next week, it's looking like Orban will be out on his arse by April 13.
He could ask his friends Donald and Vladimir for advice.
The ludicrous fuss about "marmalade" rather indicates to me that Rejoin is a way off yet.
It makes the negotiations more difficult, for sure.
1. UK adopts the Euro - OK
2. UK troops under the command of Brussels - including outr nukes - fine
3. Annual membership fees - we'll wear £5bn
4 But citrus marmalade? Never! Never! Never!
They'd just have to cave and give us our marmalade naming freedoms if they truly want us back. Big test for them.
It's a classic negotiating tactic. Create a big row over marmalade and then by the time it's resolved, you don't realise you've signed away your chutney.
Octopus Energy are paying me 4p per kwh for any electricty Iconsume between 12.30 and 4pm. If anyone wants a cup of tea...
In related good news,
As children hunt for chocolate eggs and families cook Sunday lunch, something unprecedented could take place in the country’s electricity system this Easter.
Britain could be powered entirely without fossil fuels for the first time.
The body that keeps the lights on is now preparing for the moment renewables and nuclear power everything — even if just for a few minutes. It would be the first time in 144 years the UK has not relied on fossil fuels.
Comments
WTF does it take to get these clowns supporting their own nation? I mean, Trump I can understand. He is shit scared of the kompromat piled up on him. But Billy Bob Redneck? What is in it for him?
Allah akhbar!
If you were bought up in front the magistrates for an offence when you were on bail for an offence you committed while on bail for the offence you committed while on bail….
The you didn’t get bail.
Some kinds of crime collapsed because the habitual offenders were getting warehoused.
And it will all need replacing in 30 years.
Compare with a tidal lagoon that will have a minimum life of 120 years, more like 180.
“But, they are breaking the rules!”
{shrugs} “Je suis désolé” {orders another coffee}
I've missed out on this marmalade thing. Could someone (e) recap?
But I only like the cheapest most rubbishy stuff. Homemade is lost on me, rather not have any.
I've not kept up either. Something to do with the word 'citrus'.
I thought we had left all this behind.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/04/fighting-robots-give-ukraine-hope-in-war-with-russia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
In England and Wales (a known den of liberals) the maximum penalty for shoplifting goods worth up to £200 is imprisonment for six months; otherwise, the maximum is seven years.
For a shoplifter to get seven years, though, they must first have been tried and convicted by a jury. This is assuming they have the effrontery to plead not guilty, which currently they're still allowed to.
If you don't fancy full sharia (e.g. first time removal of left hand, second time the right hand, third time the head), maybe after the xth alleged offence the police should break x of their limbs and then chuck them out of the police station's xth floor window?
And none of this continental stuff about calling the ground floor the first floor either!
The interesting line in the BBC account seems to be this:
But the UK government has now revealed the updated marmalade decree is among 76 updated EU food-related laws that will apply in England, Wales and Scotland too if its wider food deal is agreed.
Which raises a question. When exporting to the EU from GB, their rules apply. If they want sausage labelled as 'high fat offal tube' or My Little Pony stickers to have a particular sort of gum on the back, that is what you do. That's how trade works.
The interesting bit is that rules about whether you can label sardine and chocolate spread as 'marmalade' appear to start applying here. This does not trouble me as I think we should be in the single market. But it is not obvious why, given current Labour policy, the EU rules should apply to marmalade made, labelled and sold in the UK.
The Express and Mail will soon have reports on how our bananas will be compelled to bend to the right but not the left or something, and Reform will win 647 seats on a promise to send a gunboat to the quince marmalade farms of Portugal.
(NB and when our SC makes a ruling on marmalade contrary to, say, an ECJ ruling on Belgian marmalade, who mediates that particular dilemma?)
Yet what is both more powerful, and much cheaper to implement than lengthy prison terms, is the speed at which the process happens.
For shoplifting the whole process could be done within 24 hours. If you contest it at crown court the average wait for shoplifting is now around 400 days.
We then left the EU. Without having to accommodate us, the EU then changed its marmalade labelling rules to suit other countries’ usages.
The UK wants to continue trading with the EU, so we’ve signed up to a bunch of food trade rules, including this new marmalade one. That means that we now have to adjust our labelling to match the EU’s new rules. This will mean that what used to be labelled as “marmalade” in the UK will now have to be labelled “citrus marmalade” or similar.
This, some suggest, is emblematic of the problem of Brexit. In the EU, we got to influence the rules. Outside the EU, we still need to trade, but just have to accept the EU’s rules.
[NB I don't really care about marmalade, but I'm not sure if this is a blanket change or only for EU exports, the latter of which being totally fine].
If this is so - and the BBC report says it is - it is an interesting shift. From a populist point of view a central feature of Brexit was exactly that Great Britain could not have rules imposed and enforced on its entirely domestic activities from the EU.
This is about loads more than marmalade.
But twenty-four hours is too short for a defendant to receive all the evidence against them and prepare a defence. And there should be an option for trial by jury for all offences.
Organising a jury trial doesn't have to take a year. In 1952 Derek Bentley was arrested for murder on 2 November and tried at the Old Bailey between 9 and 11 December.
But the UK government has now revealed the updated marmalade decree is among 76 updated EU food-related laws that will apply in England, Wales and Scotland too if its wider food deal is agreed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e53x475qjo
Pre-Brexit we would have had influence over decisions which affect us, and will continue to affect us as a non-member.
The performative outrage from people like Patel over something utterly trivial just serves to remind us of that, and also just how ridiculous are some Brexiteers.
Fixed Penalty Notices on steroids essentially.
Also, Northern Ireland.
"With a little more time, we can easily open the Hormuz Strait, take the oil, and make a fortune. It would be a ‘gusher’ for the world."
The accused has the right to appeal as with PCNs, but if identified the default is you pay [X] fine and have points against your name. For repeat offences you are taken to court to be criminally charged with the prospect of more severe punishments.
It means low level offenders get speedy punishment that is high enough to be painful but low enough to not warrant appealing if they're dead to rights.
Not a big deal in itself but illustrative of the Brexit sovereignty outcome.
Which takes us back to the underlying problem. The reason for wanting an EU reset (and most of the public do) is that the status quo is unpopular. Unfortunately, the reset is also going to cost in the sense of the UK having to do stuff that isn't popular.
(The ultimate irony being that marmalade was something where the UK got its way whilst it was a member; the definition of marmalade was the British one. Once we left, there wasn't much reason for or continental friends to stick to that.)
The main law being applied is the Law of Unintended Conse-quinces
https://www.dansukker.co.uk/uk/recipes/green-grape-marmalade
We might do better by a proper drug treatment policy, something like the Portuguese system of decriminalisation, and civil penalties of treatment orders.
Iran or marmalade?
Out of it we have a trade problem, inside it we have a political problem. EFTA remains the best, though imperfect, option.
Naked.
In midge season.
That'll be deterrent enough!
If you don't have common regulation, you need expensive compliance checks at the border. The government aims to reduce some of the export costs introduced by Brexit.
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/theft-from-a-shop-or-stall/
The response to events in Clapham earlier in the week and to the comments of the M&S retail director, one Thinus Keeve, only show how little actual serious response there is to all of this.
The truth was this was an organised group (mob if you like) of several dozen young people who swept down Clapham High Street and terrorised a number of shops. This was clearly organised and orchestrated by social media and the Police response, as shown on CCTV, looked what it was - inadequate.
For all the moaning about Sadiq Khan, no force could mobilise the numbers required that quickly.
Oddly enough, there are plenty of people decrying the end of the "Internet" as a forum for free speech and expression in a period of tightening Government control and legislation yet only supervision (even if it were possible) could have prevented what happened.
The other side of this are the addicts in East Ham High Street who routinely go into shops and steal food and drink. We are told staff in the stores have strict instructions to basically let it happen (much like TfL staff). There are aspects of that which need challenging and a debate about how much we should allow or encourage intervention by staff (only properly trained staff naturally). Tesco can afford to lose a tin of beans and a bottle of whisky while TfL can cope with the odd evader but at what point does it become endemic and if and when it does how do we or ought we to respond?
Dealing with a couple of desperate individuals is one thing - dealing with a mob of dozens something entirely different.
On the other side, there's the wider issue about the security and surveillance State and the degree to which, for example, Government monitoring of social media is acceptable or desirable in terms of crime prevention - we know it is used as a counter terrorist mechanism for example.
Financial fines for shoplifting are madness, the fine should be their time doing community work.
What's being held up is the EU loan.
It will be interesting to watch how that one plays out.
I suspect that the majority of people who want to live in a safe, law abiding environment would be happy for a bit more state surveillance if it could put an end to the problem.
@WarMonitor3
·
1h
The amount of kit being flown in on transport aircraft from the US mainland to the Middle East indicates preparations for operations are well underway.
https://x.com/WarMonitor3/status/2040324076523131023
THEN watch his popularity plummet.
https://www.theguardian.com/thefilter/2026/jan/10/best-uk-supermarket-marmalade-tasted-rated
Oh, did you not mean politicians?
A correction will appear in tomorrow's print edition:
"A headline with an article on Friday about President Trump’s threats to leave NATO misstated the full name of the body. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, not the North American Treaty Organization."
https://x.com/NYTimesPR/status/2040142477215056082
The headline and premise of the article:
“A North American Treaty Organization without America?”
1. UK adopts the Euro - OK
2. UK troops under the command of Brussels - including outr nukes - fine
3. Annual membership fees - we'll wear £5bn
4 But citrus marmalade? Never! Never! Never!
The Conservatives continue to witter on about recruiting more Police without explaining the basic issues of recruitment, equipment and training as well as accommodation following the large scale closure of operational stations instigated by, you guessed it, the Conservatives in the 2010s.
The other side of that is at what point does that surveillance move into outright intrusion (if it hasn't already). We know people will give upanything for a sense of safety and security and the usual response of Government to terrorist attacks has been to tighten surveillance, extend control further, curtail liberties a little more and all that is done in the name of "security".
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/2040348056411939089
We can’t pretend the Iran war is not our war too
As a keen cyclist, I have visited the Netherlands three times. The first time, I forgot my water bottle and had to turn back after only a short ride. The second visit, I was knocked over by a car, resulting in a buckled wheel and a grazed knee. On the third visit, I forgot my cap and got very badly sunburnt. My experiences have convinced me that the sooner we leave the EU, the better!
Mission ongoing...
As children hunt for chocolate eggs and families cook Sunday lunch, something unprecedented could take place in the country’s electricity system this Easter.
Britain could be powered entirely without fossil fuels for the first time.
The body that keeps the lights on is now preparing for the moment renewables and nuclear power everything — even if just for a few minutes. It would be the first time in 144 years the UK has not relied on fossil fuels.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/01d7913a-be6b-4590-b056-b03714779643?shareToken=d2b269c1b4c8e47476208be839cdf979
Further down the article, they make the point that one of the limiting factors up to now has been the need for some inertia to stabilise the system.