NEW: Understand Dan Carden will NOT give up his seat for Andy Burnham, according to sources. I am told there was one conversation about it before party conference last year but it went nowhere. @LBC
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Human remains have been on display for just about forever. They are a treasure trove of useful information.
I am increasingly of the opinion that MPs and spads are by and large a bunch of dorks who think they are part of some grand the thick of it drama or game rather than just saying what they mean and doing what they day like normal people. No wonder everyone hates them.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
So you are saying he was not trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country, because he was only trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country?
Whether the politics is domestic or foreign, the violence was domestic.
I disagree with many a foreign government, does not give me the right, no matter how sincerely held the disagreement, to pick up a sledgehammer and attack someone in the UK.
It could be due to opposing Putin and it would be no better and no less terrorism to hit someone with a sledgehammer here for political purposes.
What I do t get about Wes Streeting is how he thinks he’s in with a chance. Whilst I suppose, anything’s technically possible if he somehow gets a good start and demonstrates exceptional riz, he’s unlikely. I just can’t see Labour members warming to him, however good he is. IMO he’d better off positioning himself as a potential CoE. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Nature of politics. Anyone who takes a realistic conception of their talents and popularity will run away screaming, so we're inevitably left with different sorts of chancer, nutter and egomaniac. Which is the dominant category for those involved in the current fracas is left as an exercise for the reader.
Streeting wants it, and now is probably the best chance he will get, with no Andy and no next generation rivals. That it's not that good chance is neither here or there. As for throwing underlings over the top to destablise the Prime Minister, details...
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
I would change that definition, if you live under an authoritarian regime you are entitled to overthrow it by force.
If a Ukrainian threw a Molotov through the window of the Russian embassy, and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit. Legitimate act of war.
Yes we need to protect British citizens, hitting someone with a sledgehammer should be attempted murder and carries a potential life tariff.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
I would change that definition, if you live under an authoritarian regime you are entitled to overthrow it by force.
If a Ukrainian threw a Molotov through the window of the Russian embassy, and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit. Legitimate act of war.
Yes we need to protect British citizens, hitting someone with a sledgehammer should be attempted murder and carries a potential life tariff.
That’s the beauty of a jury trial. A jury can always acquit regardless of the law.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
I would change that definition, if you live under an authoritarian regime you are entitled to overthrow it by force.
If a Ukrainian threw a Molotov through the window of the Russian embassy, and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit. Legitimate act of war.
Yes we need to protect British citizens, hitting someone with a sledgehammer should be attempted murder and carries a potential life tariff.
Agreed. It’s horrifically dangerous and you are very likely to paralyse someone even if you don’t kill them. What kind of evil c**t does that?
It should have been an attempted murder charge and a chunky jail sentence. The terror motivation - or not - is neither here not there
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
This is not a game. Call me old fashioned but Labour MPs have a civic duty to conduct themselves and their leadership contest in the best interests of the country, not this petty nonsense.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
So you are saying he was not trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country, because he was only trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country?
Whether the politics is domestic or foreign, the violence was domestic.
I disagree with many a foreign government, does not give me the right, no matter how sincerely held the disagreement, to pick up a sledgehammer and attack someone in the UK.
It could be due to opposing Putin and it would be no better and no less terrorism to hit someone with a sledgehammer here for political purposes.
I’m saying that he may not have been trying to influence a political outcome anywhere. He was just trying to hit someone.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
And the way he's going he'll help to deliver a Tory-lite, i.e. Reform, majority in 2029.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
And the way he's going he'll help to deliver a Tory-lite, i.e. Reform, majority in 2029.
Surely a Reform Government would be Truss-lite not Tory-lite..
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
Sentencing and convictions are different are they not?
Under the law he was convicted.
Also under the law what he was convicted of was terrorism.
IANAL but as far as I am aware aggravating and mitigating factors for sentencing purposes are determined by the Judge, not the Jury.
Is there any difference here between the Judge determining terrorism to be an aggravating factor and any other aggravating factors Judges determine in any other case?
You can believe what you want and I will defend your right to do so no matter how much I dislike what you are saying. But attacking people based on your political beliefs? That is terrorism.
Wikipedia says: "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims."
That's not the same as your definition here. You are expanding the term.
How am I expanding it?
Is hitting someone with a sledgehammer non-violent?
Or was the person he hit with a sledgehammer a combatant in your eyes?
Or did he not have a political or ideological aim?
Violence ✅️ Against a non-combatant? ✅️ Political or ideological aim ✅️
Which bit of that do you disagree with?
Note that UK legislation, which is superior to Wikipedia under the rule of law, includes serious criminal damage and not just violence against people.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
I would change that definition, if you live under an authoritarian regime you are entitled to overthrow it by force.
If a Ukrainian threw a Molotov through the window of the Russian embassy, and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit. Legitimate act of war.
Yes we need to protect British citizens, hitting someone with a sledgehammer should be attempted murder and carries a potential life tariff.
Agreed. It’s horrifically dangerous and you are very likely to paralyse someone even if you don’t kill them. What kind of evil c**t does that?
It should have been an attempted murder charge and a chunky jail sentence. The terror motivation - or not - is neither here not there
It’s still an aggravating factor in sentencing though.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
This is not a game. Call me old fashioned but Labour MPs have a civic duty to conduct themselves and their leadership contest in the best interests of the country, not this petty nonsense.
I agree it’s nonsense. Utterly self-indulgent . There’s an economic storm coming and there’s 3 years to the next GE . There’s plenty of time to replace Starmer .
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
I do not disagree with Judges following the law when they do sentencing.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
FWIW a jury often won't know or be able to guess what all the sentencing factors are on conviction. And their oath of course is to try the matter WRT the evidence and no other considerations.
For example some murder cases will, on conviction, be liable to a whole life tariff on account of previous convictions which can't be disclosed to the jury.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
For Burnham to become Labour Party leader the following needs to happen in this sequence:
1. He needs a parliamentary seat to become vacant 2. He needs the approval of the NEC to put himself forward as a candidate 3. Assuming he gets NEC approval, he needs to win the local party selection to be the by-election candidate 4. He needs to win the subsequent by-election 5. There needs to be a vacancy for the leadership or he needs to secure sufficient nominations to force a leadership ballot. 6. He then needs to win the subsequent leadership election
1. seems possible and 2. seems more possible than in January, but is still not a given. If the first and second hurdles are passed, then 3 seems likely.
It is steps 4 and 5 where Burnham faces the biggest challenges.
Much has been said here about the challenges of winning a by-election in even an ostensibly safe Labour seat. But even assuming he does win a by-election, the timing of his return to the Commons in relation to any leadership contest is absolutely critical.
To get on the leadership ballot paper he needs to be back in Parliament when the PLP nominations open. The very earliest a by-election can take place is 21 working days after issuing the writ. But the window for nominations is typically short and opens within a week of the vacancy arising. If Starmer goes in the next week or two, Burnham can't realistically get back to Westminster in time to get nominated.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Of all the candidates Miliband is very much the worst, and I don't rate many others either.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
So you are saying he was not trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country, because he was only trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country?
Whether the politics is domestic or foreign, the violence was domestic.
I disagree with many a foreign government, does not give me the right, no matter how sincerely held the disagreement, to pick up a sledgehammer and attack someone in the UK.
It could be due to opposing Putin and it would be no better and no less terrorism to hit someone with a sledgehammer here for political purposes.
I’m saying that he may not have been trying to influence a political outcome anywhere. He was just trying to hit someone.
The question that always springs to mind when any of this PA stuff comes up is: why on earth isn’t every single person who took part in the far-right riots of 2024 currently serving a sentence for terrorism?
The riots were politically motivated and highly violent. They attempted to burn migrants alive in hotels. More than 300 police officers were injured. Over 700 convictions, average sentence of two years, arson, GBH, criminal damage.
Tens of thousands of people posted online in support of this terrorist activity. Why haven’t they arrested for terrorism, in the same way PA t-shirt wearers have been arrested?
Given we can now sentence for terrorism even without a conviction, maybe it’s time we had another look at these people.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
I do not disagree with Judges following the law when they do sentencing.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
FWIW a jury often won't know or be able to guess what all the sentencing factors are on conviction. And their oath of course is to try the matter WRT the evidence and no other considerations.
For example some murder cases will, on conviction, be liable to a whole life tariff on account of previous convictions which can't be disclosed to the jury.
Precisely.
It has never been the juries job to determine aggravating factors.
They determine guilt, and did.
Maybe don't take a sledgehammer to someone no matter how "worthy" your cause?
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
This is not a game. Call me old fashioned but Labour MPs have a civic duty to conduct themselves and their leadership contest in the best interests of the country, not this petty nonsense.
I agree it’s nonsense. Utterly self-indulgent . There’s an economic storm coming and there’s 3 years to the next GE . There’s plenty of time to replace Starmer .
Resposting from yesterday: Alan Clark's Diaries. November 1990.
Maddeningly, I had to return to the Department. Meetings, and an official lunch. Scandinavians. ‘I assume that there is no likelihood of Mrs Thatcher being defeated for the position of Prime Minister?’ ‘Oh no. None whatsoever. It’s just one of these quaint traditions we have in the Conservative Party.' But the encounter made me realise the enormity of what we’re doing- changing the Prime Minister- but without any electoral authority to do so.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 59s One point of interest here. With 92 Labour MPs calling for Starmer to go & a Labour working majority of 165, it's no longer clear Starmer commands a majority in the House. So it's by no means clear the King *ought* to participate in a King's speech until that's resolved.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
This is not a game. Call me old fashioned but Labour MPs have a civic duty to conduct themselves and their leadership contest in the best interests of the country, not this petty nonsense.
I agree it’s nonsense. Utterly self-indulgent . There’s an economic storm coming and there’s 3 years to the next GE . There’s plenty of time to replace Starmer .
Resposting from yesterday: Alan Clark's Diaries. November 1990.
Maddeningly, I had to return to the Department. Meetings, and an official lunch. Scandinavians. ‘I assume that there is no likelihood of Mrs Thatcher being defeated for the position of Prime Minister?’ ‘Oh no. None whatsoever. It’s just one of these quaint traditions we have in the Conservative Party.' But the encounter made me realise the enormity of what we’re doing- changing the Prime Minister- but without any electoral authority to do so.
That is where Alan Clark is wrong - because we don't elect the PM we elect our local MP to our representative in Parliament.
Now we may vote for our local MP based on the leader of the party they represent but it's up to our representatives (the MPs we elect to represent us) to select the person they want to lead them and the country.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
For Burnham to become Labour Party leader the following needs to happen in this sequence:
1. He needs a parliamentary seat to become vacant 2. He needs the approval of the NEC to put himself forward as a candidate 3. Assuming he gets NEC approval, he needs to win the local party selection to be the by-election candidate 4. He needs to win the subsequent by-election 5. There needs to be a vacancy for the leadership or he needs to secure sufficient nominations to force a leadership ballot. 6. He then needs to win the subsequent leadership election
1. seems possible and 2. seems more possible than in January, but is still not a given. If the first and second hurdles are passed, then 3 seems likely.
It is steps 4 and 5 where Burnham faces the biggest challenges.
Much has been said here about the challenges of winning a by-election in even an ostensibly safe Labour seat. But even assuming he does win a by-election, the timing of his return to the Commons in relation to any leadership contest is absolutely critical.
To get on the leadership ballot paper he needs to be back in Parliament when the PLP nominations open. The very earliest a by-election can take place is 21 working days after issuing the writ. But the window for nominations is typically short and opens within a week of the vacancy arising. If Starmer goes in the next week or two, Burnham can't realistically get back to Westminster in time to get nominated.
Unless Starmer gives himself a long resignation period, as many past PMs have done.
He could say his replacement will be elected at Party Conference. That would give time for a by-election.
And once he has resigned, he has no reason to block Burnham anymore.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
I do not disagree with Judges following the law when they do sentencing.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
FWIW a jury often won't know or be able to guess what all the sentencing factors are on conviction. And their oath of course is to try the matter WRT the evidence and no other considerations.
For example some murder cases will, on conviction, be liable to a whole life tariff on account of previous convictions which can't be disclosed to the jury.
Precisely.
It has never been the juries job to determine aggravating factors.
They determine guilt, and did.
Maybe don't take a sledgehammer to someone no matter how "worthy" your cause?
It’s remarkable watching a supposed libertarian defend this. Terrorism sentencing for criminal damage without trial.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Of all the candidates Miliband is very much the worst, and I don't rate many others either.
I actually think Milliband is the best. That’s more a reflection on the others rather than Milliband.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 59s One point of interest here. With 92 Labour MPs calling for Starmer to go & a Labour working majority of 165, it's no longer clear Starmer commands a majority in the House. So it's by no means clear the King *ought* to participate in a King's speech until that's resolved.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
For Burnham to become Labour Party leader the following needs to happen in this sequence:
1. He needs a parliamentary seat to become vacant 2. He needs the approval of the NEC to put himself forward as a candidate 3. Assuming he gets NEC approval, he needs to win the local party selection to be the by-election candidate 4. He needs to win the subsequent by-election 5. There needs to be a vacancy for the leadership or he needs to secure sufficient nominations to force a leadership ballot. 6. He then needs to win the subsequent leadership election
1. seems possible and 2. seems more possible than in January, but is still not a given. If the first and second hurdles are passed, then 3 seems likely.
It is steps 4 and 5 where Burnham faces the biggest challenges.
Much has been said here about the challenges of winning a by-election in even an ostensibly safe Labour seat. But even assuming he does win a by-election, the timing of his return to the Commons in relation to any leadership contest is absolutely critical.
To get on the leadership ballot paper he needs to be back in Parliament when the PLP nominations open. The very earliest a by-election can take place is 21 working days after issuing the writ. But the window for nominations is typically short and opens within a week of the vacancy arising. If Starmer goes in the next week or two, Burnham can't realistically get back to Westminster in time to get nominated.
Yes he's kyboshed if the contest is triggered now.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
There are mummified remains in the British Museum, no?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
On the face of it these people were sentenced for a crime they weren't convicted of in court. If so, I would think they would have a strong case under human rights law, including if it gets that far a visit to Strasbourg.
No, they were sentenced for a crime they were convicted of.
Aggravating factors don't need convictions, do they?
Abolish the whole concept of aggravating factors if you dislike it. Don't cherrypick when they can be applied.
Including category A culpability and category 1 harm aggravating factors, sentencing guidelines for criminal damage gives you one year and six months in prison. It is possible to extend these factors upwards to a theoretical maximum of 10 years.
I return to my original point. Terrorism is a different offence from criminal damage and if these people will be sentenced for terrorism offences they need to be convicted of it. It's basic habeas corpus.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
I do not disagree with Judges following the law when they do sentencing.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
FWIW a jury often won't know or be able to guess what all the sentencing factors are on conviction. And their oath of course is to try the matter WRT the evidence and no other considerations.
For example some murder cases will, on conviction, be liable to a whole life tariff on account of previous convictions which can't be disclosed to the jury.
Precisely.
It has never been the juries job to determine aggravating factors.
They determine guilt, and did.
Maybe don't take a sledgehammer to someone no matter how "worthy" your cause?
It’s remarkable watching a supposed libertarian defend this. Terrorism sentencing for criminal damage without trial.
We already have #pbfreespeech. #pblibertarian.
It is the frigging law! Tony Blair incorporated criminal damage within the definition of terrorism.
A law I would be happy to repeal.
A law Tony Blair passed, not me.
Yet not one word of criticism is coming from you towards Blair.
PS he had a trial. He was found guilty. Judges determine aggravating factors under the law, always have, not juries.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
There are mummified remains in the British Museum, no?
There certainly was one once in the Egyptian section, as a London child I saw him/her many times; I am told the staff called him Ginger. IIRC that exhibit has now been removed.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
This is not a game. Call me old fashioned but Labour MPs have a civic duty to conduct themselves and their leadership contest in the best interests of the country, not this petty nonsense.
I agree it’s nonsense. Utterly self-indulgent . There’s an economic storm coming and there’s 3 years to the next GE . There’s plenty of time to replace Starmer .
Resposting from yesterday: Alan Clark's Diaries. November 1990.
Maddeningly, I had to return to the Department. Meetings, and an official lunch. Scandinavians. ‘I assume that there is no likelihood of Mrs Thatcher being defeated for the position of Prime Minister?’ ‘Oh no. None whatsoever. It’s just one of these quaint traditions we have in the Conservative Party.' But the encounter made me realise the enormity of what we’re doing- changing the Prime Minister- but without any electoral authority to do so.
That is where Alan Clark is wrong - because we don't elect the PM we elect our local MP to our representative in Parliament.
Now we may vote for our local MP based on the leader of the party they represent but it's up to our representatives (the MPs we elect to represent us) to select the person they want to lead them and the country.
Indeed every PM since the war apart from Edward Heath, Wilson's first Premiership, and Attlee has either gained or left office due to reasons other than a General Election. It is the norm rather than the exception.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 59s One point of interest here. With 92 Labour MPs calling for Starmer to go & a Labour working majority of 165, it's no longer clear Starmer commands a majority in the House. So it's by no means clear the King *ought* to participate in a King's speech until that's resolved.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 59s One point of interest here. With 92 Labour MPs calling for Starmer to go & a Labour working majority of 165, it's no longer clear Starmer commands a majority in the House. So it's by no means clear the King *ought* to participate in a King's speech until that's resolved.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
There are mummified remains in the British Museum, no?
Yes. But they removed the shrunken heads from the Asmoleum, for example.
The exchange of posts on here about the PA Elbit protestors is an example of why I love PB.
Eabhal posts the original link, outraged.
I am duly outraged also.
I then read the details of Blair's terrorism act and and judges remarks and, briefly, I am calmed by the fact that the law was followed as it should have been.
Then I read how weird the judge's interpretation actually was and I'm back to being outraged.
But at least slightly better informed on the state of play with jury trials.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
So you are saying he was not trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country, because he was only trying to influence a political outcome when he wielded a sledgehammer against someone in this country?
Whether the politics is domestic or foreign, the violence was domestic.
I disagree with many a foreign government, does not give me the right, no matter how sincerely held the disagreement, to pick up a sledgehammer and attack someone in the UK.
It could be due to opposing Putin and it would be no better and no less terrorism to hit someone with a sledgehammer here for political purposes.
I’m saying that he may not have been trying to influence a political outcome anywhere. He was just trying to hit someone.
The question that always springs to mind when any of this PA stuff comes up is: why on earth isn’t every single person who took part in the far-right riots of 2024 currently serving a sentence for terrorism?
The riots were politically motivated and highly violent. They attempted to burn migrants alive in hotels. More than 300 police officers were injured. Over 700 convictions, average sentence of two years, arson, GBH, criminal damage.
Tens of thousands of people posted online in support of this terrorist activity. Why haven’t they arrested for terrorism, in the same way PA t-shirt wearers have been arrested?
Given we can now sentence for terrorism even without a conviction, maybe it’s time we had another look at these people.
Agree.
As to 'sentencing for terrorism, the matter of motive is not an ingredient of crime in general, but, for example, murders will vary in circumstance, including motive, which will affect the tariff on a life sentence from about 10 years, rarely less, to a whole life order.
The longer the PM holds out the more my semi-sarcastic comments urging him to keep going become true. It's entertaining if they keep waiting for him to bow out and he's all 'nope, do an actual challenge already'.
Polanski was hoping all the media obsession with Starmer might see the BBC avoid his council tax issue . It unfortunately turned up on the news .
After the hatchet piece on Starmer and the Reform advert thrown in it seems the BBC is determined to try and elect Reform so they can shut down the organisation!
Are the BBC so fxcking stupid that they’re just going to continue to give Farage an easy ride !
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
I agree. Grave goods yes to display, but human remains? No.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I'm still backing Umunna.
Bring back Lembit Opik - that's what I say.
Not sure he'd fit well in modern Labour; he's been on a Journey.
Just looked at his wikipedia page. Sheesh. I'm crossing him off my potential PM list. So I guess that just leaves Umunna or bringing Liz Truss back for a laugh.
Why not the lettuce? It's been long enough that the lettuce could have rotted and resurrected itself as a new lettuce.
But then she was more or less just a kooky nitwit, now she is a radicalised, MAGA kooky nitwit. Pretty sure she’d surprise very much on the downside.
The exchange of posts on here about the PA Elbit protestors is an example of why I love PB.
Eabhal posts the original link, outraged.
I am duly outraged also.
I then read the details of Blair's terrorism act and and judges remarks and, briefly, I am calmed by the fact that the law was followed as it should have been.
Then I read how weird the judge's interpretation actually was and I'm back to being outraged.
But at least slightly better informed on the state of play with jury trials.
Thanks PB.
I’ve been told many times that judges finding new meanings in existing laws is progressive, living law in action.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
On the face of it these people were sentenced for a crime they weren't convicted of in court. If so, I would think they would have a strong case under human rights law, including if it gets that far a visit to Strasbourg.
No, they were sentenced for a crime they were convicted of.
Aggravating factors don't need convictions, do they?
Abolish the whole concept of aggravating factors if you dislike it. Don't cherrypick when they can be applied.
Including category A culpability and category 1 harm aggravating factors, sentencing guidelines for criminal damage gives you one year and six months in prison. It is possible to extend these factors upwards to a theoretical maximum of 10 years.
I return to my original point. Terrorism is a different offence from criminal damage and if these people will be sentenced for terrorism offences they need to be convicted of it. It's basic habeas corpus.
The law and sentencing guidelines says it is an aggravating factor for other offences people can be convicted of.
How is getting convicted by a jury and having an aggravating factor applied under the law a breach of habeas corpus? Are all aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines a breach?
The exchange of posts on here about the PA Elbit protestors is an example of why I love PB.
Eabhal posts the original link, outraged.
I am duly outraged also.
I then read the details of Blair's terrorism act and and judges remarks and, briefly, I am calmed by the fact that the law was followed as it should have been.
Then I read how weird the judge's interpretation actually was and I'm back to being outraged.
But at least slightly better informed on the state of play with jury trials.
Thanks PB.
I’ve been told many times that judges finding new meanings in existing laws is progressive, living law in action.
Why is this different?
Isn’t critiquing judges Facism?
I kinda think maxh misses the point somewhat - if what the judge has done here is absolutely correct and within the law and the spirit of it, it's an even bigger outrage. How have we let a law like this end up on the statute book? And why do we tolerate it being applied so unevenly?
The Magna Carta/jury trials crowd are oddly quiet this evening.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
On the face of it these people were sentenced for a crime they weren't convicted of in court. If so, I would think they would have a strong case under human rights law, including if it gets that far a visit to Strasbourg.
No, they were sentenced for a crime they were convicted of.
Aggravating factors don't need convictions, do they?
Abolish the whole concept of aggravating factors if you dislike it. Don't cherrypick when they can be applied.
Including category A culpability and category 1 harm aggravating factors, sentencing guidelines for criminal damage gives you one year and six months in prison. It is possible to extend these factors upwards to a theoretical maximum of 10 years.
I return to my original point. Terrorism is a different offence from criminal damage and if these people will be sentenced for terrorism offences they need to be convicted of it. It's basic habeas corpus.
This is a misunderstanding. There are specific terror related offences, but, for example, murder is murder, and there isn't a special offence of 'murder for reason of terrorism' but the motive comes into play in following then sentencing guidelines. So with all offences which have a single name but a multiplicity of motivations and seriousness.
The exchange of posts on here about the PA Elbit protestors is an example of why I love PB.
Eabhal posts the original link, outraged.
I am duly outraged also.
I then read the details of Blair's terrorism act and and judges remarks and, briefly, I am calmed by the fact that the law was followed as it should have been.
Then I read how weird the judge's interpretation actually was and I'm back to being outraged.
But at least slightly better informed on the state of play with jury trials.
Thanks PB.
I’ve been told many times that judges finding new meanings in existing laws is progressive, living law in action.
Why is this different?
Isn’t critiquing judges Facism?
I kinda think maxh misses the point somewhat - if what the judge has done here is absolutely correct and within the law and the spirit of it, it's an even bigger outrage. How have we let a law like this end up on the statute book? And why do we tolerate it being applied so unevenly?
Because Tony Blair had a massive majority and was an unrepentant authoritarian.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
There are mummified remains in the British Museum, no?
There certainly was one once in the Egyptian section, as a London child I saw him/her many times; I am told the staff called him Ginger. IIRC that exhibit has now been removed.
Other examples include the strikingly well preserved "bog bodies" in the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin, and the medical exhibits in the Hunterian Museum in London. I also remember a _Body Worlds_ exhibition in London of human and animal preserved anatomical specimens in the 2000s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Worlds ). So I think that at least some forms of this kind of exhibition are not universally considered wrong.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
This is not a game. Call me old fashioned but Labour MPs have a civic duty to conduct themselves and their leadership contest in the best interests of the country, not this petty nonsense.
I agree it’s nonsense. Utterly self-indulgent . There’s an economic storm coming and there’s 3 years to the next GE . There’s plenty of time to replace Starmer .
Resposting from yesterday: Alan Clark's Diaries. November 1990.
Maddeningly, I had to return to the Department. Meetings, and an official lunch. Scandinavians. ‘I assume that there is no likelihood of Mrs Thatcher being defeated for the position of Prime Minister?’ ‘Oh no. None whatsoever. It’s just one of these quaint traditions we have in the Conservative Party.' But the encounter made me realise the enormity of what we’re doing- changing the Prime Minister- but without any electoral authority to do so.
That is where Alan Clark is wrong - because we don't elect the PM we elect our local MP to our representative in Parliament.
Now we may vote for our local MP based on the leader of the party they represent but it's up to our representatives (the MPs we elect to represent us) to select the person they want to lead them and the country.
Yes indeed. Now we talk about things being more presidential sometimes, and fools like Rees-Mogg have attempted an explanation that given the public expectation about the leader when voting it should be treated as if it was a personsally specific mandate (he only invented this constitutional concern when it was Boris, funnily enough), but those are reasons to argue MPs shouldn't do it, not that they couldn't do it.
It's risky, they have to be careful given how leader focused elections are, but they can and do. It's normal, and electoral authority is not a thing here. They're supposed to act on judgement between elections. What if a PM went mad?
Find the fetishisation of clapped out body parts one of the strangest aspects of our culture.
I think it more an issue of respecting the wishes of the dead. If someone wishes for their body to be on display that is a different matter, such as Bentham at University College London.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I'm still backing Umunna.
Bring back Lembit Opik - that's what I say.
Not sure he'd fit well in modern Labour; he's been on a Journey.
Just looked at his wikipedia page. Sheesh. I'm crossing him off my potential PM list. So I guess that just leaves Umunna or bringing Liz Truss back for a laugh.
Why not the lettuce? It's been long enough that the lettuce could have rotted and resurrected itself as a new lettuce.
But then she was more or less just a kooky nitwit, now she is a radicalised, MAGA kooky nitwit. Pretty sure she’d surprise very much on the downside.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Cultures will vary, but in our culture I don't think it is right to display human remains of any age as an exhibit.
There are mummified remains in the British Museum, no?
There certainly was one once in the Egyptian section, as a London child I saw him/her many times; I am told the staff called him Ginger. IIRC that exhibit has now been removed.
Other examples include the strikingly well preserved "bog bodies" in the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin, and the medical exhibits in the Hunterian Museum in London. I also remember a _Body Worlds_ exhibition in London of human and animal preserved anatomical specimens in the 2000s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Worlds). So I think that at least some forms of this kind of exhibition are not universally considered wrong.
My dating strategy was a series of trials - long, hilly walks, visits to museums and so on. One girl responded with a third date to the Surgeon's Hall and ... it's quite something.
Burnham fans need to stop asking for Starmer to resign. If he does it’s curtains for Burnham as there will be no time and a leadership challenge could end up delivering Miliband which would be a gift to the opposition.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Of all the candidates Miliband is very much the worst, and I don't rate many others either.
I actually think Milliband is the best. That’s more a reflection on the others rather than Milliband.
Some of the names not being mentioned like Carns and Jones would be better, although Jones soiled himself on behalf of Starmer this morning which is a shame.
Doesn't solve any fundamentals but if Starmer survives the week it's perhaps more evidence for my theory that just ignoring a media spiral trying to present leaving as an inevitability can sometimes work.
Labour are indeed going to end with the worst of all possible worlds
All the chaos and agony and dirty laundry laundering of a leadership election. Plus the spiking interest rates. And the impression of total flailing incompetence. Costing us billions
And at the end the total dud prime minister is still in situ. Clinging on
I really believe this could be the end of them forever. Who will forgive and forget this utter clown show
I think they’ve flubbed their chances. This will only move further if Burnham announces he’s going to try for the Commons again.
When people like myself who are reasonably supportive of a Labour Government conclude Starmer is a dead duck and needs to go but won't lose patience, that puts the Party in extreme peril.
The exchange of posts on here about the PA Elbit protestors is an example of why I love PB.
Eabhal posts the original link, outraged.
I am duly outraged also.
I then read the details of Blair's terrorism act and and judges remarks and, briefly, I am calmed by the fact that the law was followed as it should have been.
Then I read how weird the judge's interpretation actually was and I'm back to being outraged.
But at least slightly better informed on the state of play with jury trials.
Thanks PB.
I’ve been told many times that judges finding new meanings in existing laws is progressive, living law in action.
Why is this different?
Isn’t critiquing judges Facism?
I kinda think maxh misses the point somewhat - if what the judge has done here is absolutely correct and within the law and the spirit of it, it's an even bigger outrage. How have we let a law like this end up on the statute book? And why do we tolerate it being applied so unevenly?
The Magna Carta/jury trials crowd are oddly quiet this evening.
I’ve been opposing this kind of crap for multiple decades.
The retrial “enhancement” to enable the prosecution of the racist sociopaths who murdered Stephen Lawrence was a classic of cutting down laws to get at the Devil.
The grotesque system of the Home Sec depriving people of citizenship at whim.
You could even bring up the passing of laws which are rarely used, but held in reserve. Such as here. So if they feel like changing the pattern of charging, suddenly you can pick people up for decade.
I mean, who can objectively argue that PM Farage would be WORSE than this? How? Why? He’s a proven organiser and he has a brain and he gets things done
These people in power are cretins and they can’t do anything
Labour are indeed going to end with the worst of all possible worlds
All the chaos and agony and dirty laundry laundering of a leadership election. Plus the spiking interest rates. And the impression of total flailing incompetence. Costing us billions
And at the end the total dud prime minister is still in situ. Clinging on
I really believe this could be the end of them forever. Who will forgive and forget this utter clown show
Well it's not them I worry about - it's us! They're the government.
The worst of all possible worlds probably lives in the gift of Reform or the Greens - I think equally.
I mean, who can objectively argue that PM Farage would be WORSE than this? How? Why? He’s a proven organiser and he has a brain and he gets things done
These people in power are cretins and they can’t do anything
Expect Reform back in the 30s and Labour sub-15
That will probably happen anyway as a result of Thursday. At least until we get a shiny new Labour PM anyway.
I mean, who can objectively argue that PM Farage would be WORSE than this? How? Why? He’s a proven organiser and he has a brain and he gets things done
These people in power are cretins and they can’t do anything
Expect Reform back in the 30s and Labour sub-15
Farage famously falls out with allies, and usually they flounce off to form their own new parties. How he would handle managing 200-300 MPs, who would be grateful to him but only up to a point as they would be accountable to their electorates, is a major question. Boris couldn't do it, Keir cannot do it.
110 Labour MPs sign statement opposing leadership contest
Maybe Streeting can convince Starmer to go directly to the King to ask him to appoint Streeting as PM, honouring the Burnhamites wish to avoid an early leadership election. Then if Burnham can get back into parliament, he can challenge Streeting instead of Starmer.
Sky are suggesting that the pomp and ceremony of the Kings Speech is having a dampening effect as no one wants to disrupt it, but they expect Streeting will make an announcement either after it tomorrow or certainly on Thursday when he has an official engagement
I am also having problems with posting on the main site
Comments
NEW: Understand Dan Carden will NOT give up his seat for Andy Burnham, according to sources.
I am told there was one conversation about it before party conference last year but it went nowhere.
@LBC
🚨 NEW: Buckingham Palace has privately asked No 10 whether the King's Speech should go ahead tomorrow
One source: "The Palace view is ‘we do not want to be any part of this conversation - do not bring us into it'..."
The only way he can be PM is if there are no other Candidates
There will be a contest if he puts himself forward so detested is he apart from within the Mandelson McSweeney faction.
In a way i really hope he wins as he makes Starmer look some colossus of principle.
Whether the politics is domestic or foreign, the violence was domestic.
I disagree with many a foreign government, does not give me the right, no matter how sincerely held the disagreement, to pick up a sledgehammer and attack someone in the UK.
It could be due to opposing Putin and it would be no better and no less terrorism to hit someone with a sledgehammer here for political purposes.
Streeting wants it, and now is probably the best chance he will get, with no Andy and no next generation rivals. That it's not that good chance is neither here or there. As for throwing underlings over the top to destablise the Prime Minister, details...
If a Ukrainian threw a Molotov through the window of the Russian embassy, and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit. Legitimate act of war.
Yes we need to protect British citizens, hitting someone with a sledgehammer should be attempted murder and carries a potential life tariff.
He had his chance and just helped to deliver a Tory majority in 2015.
Soon find out anyway.
It should have been an attempted murder charge and a chunky jail sentence. The terror motivation - or not - is neither here not there
Is hitting someone with a sledgehammer non-violent?
Or was the person he hit with a sledgehammer a combatant in your eyes?
Or did he not have a political or ideological aim?
Violence ✅️
Against a non-combatant? ✅️
Political or ideological aim ✅️
Which bit of that do you disagree with?
Note that UK legislation, which is superior to Wikipedia under the rule of law, includes serious criminal damage and not just violence against people.
For example some murder cases will, on conviction, be liable to a whole life tariff on account of previous convictions which can't be disclosed to the jury.
This is just painful
1. He needs a parliamentary seat to become vacant
2. He needs the approval of the NEC to put himself forward as a candidate
3. Assuming he gets NEC approval, he needs to win the local party selection to be the by-election candidate
4. He needs to win the subsequent by-election
5. There needs to be a vacancy for the leadership or he needs to secure sufficient nominations to force a leadership ballot.
6. He then needs to win the subsequent leadership election
1. seems possible and 2. seems more possible than in January, but is still not a given. If the first and second hurdles are passed, then 3 seems likely.
It is steps 4 and 5 where Burnham faces the biggest challenges.
Much has been said here about the challenges of winning a by-election in even an ostensibly safe Labour seat. But even assuming he does win a by-election, the timing of his return to the Commons in relation to any leadership contest is absolutely critical.
To get on the leadership ballot paper he needs to be back in Parliament when the PLP nominations open. The very earliest a by-election can take place is 21 working days after issuing the writ. But the window for nominations is typically short and opens within a week of the vacancy arising. If Starmer goes in the next week or two, Burnham can't realistically get back to Westminster in time to get nominated.
The riots were politically motivated and highly violent. They attempted to burn migrants alive in hotels. More than 300 police officers were injured. Over 700 convictions, average sentence of two years, arson, GBH, criminal damage.
Tens of thousands of people posted online in support of this terrorist activity. Why haven’t they arrested for terrorism, in the same way PA t-shirt wearers have been arrested?
Given we can now sentence for terrorism even without a conviction, maybe it’s time we had another look at these people.
It has never been the juries job to determine aggravating factors.
They determine guilt, and did.
Maybe don't take a sledgehammer to someone no matter how "worthy" your cause?
Maddeningly, I had to return to the Department. Meetings, and an official lunch. Scandinavians.
‘I assume that there is no likelihood of Mrs Thatcher being defeated for the position of Prime Minister?’
‘Oh no. None whatsoever. It’s just one of these quaint traditions we have in the Conservative Party.'
But the encounter made me realise the enormity of what we’re doing- changing the Prime Minister- but without any electoral authority to do so.
He tells me 'its going to be alright and he'll see me tomorrow at the State Opening'
I'm not so sure (on either counts)
Bunnco - your man on the spot
@andrew_lilico
·
59s
One point of interest here. With 92 Labour MPs calling for Starmer to go & a Labour working majority of 165, it's no longer clear Starmer commands a majority in the House. So it's by no means clear the King *ought* to participate in a King's speech until that's resolved.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2054247215640563920
Now we may vote for our local MP based on the leader of the party they represent but it's up to our representatives (the MPs we elect to represent us) to select the person they want to lead them and the country.
Burnham will never be PM and is unlikely ever to be an MP again.
WATCH: David Lammy says "no one has the names" to challenge Keir Starmer as Prime Minister
"Let's just step back. Take a breath. Let's remember we have the King's speech"
He could say his replacement will be elected at Party Conference. That would give time for a by-election.
And once he has resigned, he has no reason to block Burnham anymore.
We already have #pbfreespeech. #pblibertarian.
I return to my original point. Terrorism is a different offence from criminal damage and if these people will be sentenced for terrorism offences they need to be convicted of it. It's basic habeas corpus.
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/criminal-damage-other-than-by-fire-value-exceeding-5-000-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-criminal-damage/
A law I would be happy to repeal.
A law Tony Blair passed, not me.
Yet not one word of criticism is coming from you towards Blair.
PS he had a trial. He was found guilty. Judges determine aggravating factors under the law, always have, not juries.
She was enjoying it.
Our sites original person to focus repeatedly on a certain woman standing to be elected in South West Norfolk. Whatever happened to her?
Eabhal posts the original link, outraged.
I am duly outraged also.
I then read the details of Blair's terrorism act and and judges remarks and, briefly, I am calmed by the fact that the law was followed as it should have been.
Then I read how weird the judge's interpretation actually was and I'm back to being outraged.
But at least slightly better informed on the state of play with jury trials.
Thanks PB.
As to 'sentencing for terrorism, the matter of motive is not an ingredient of crime in general, but, for example, murders will vary in circumstance, including motive, which will affect the tariff on a life sentence from about 10 years, rarely less, to a whole life order.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2204700/prince-andrew-accused-kick-dog
After the hatchet piece on Starmer and the Reform advert thrown in it seems the BBC is determined to try and elect Reform so they can shut down the organisation!
Are the BBC so fxcking stupid that they’re just going to continue to give Farage an easy ride !
Why is this different?
Isn’t critiquing judges Facism?
How is getting convicted by a jury and having an aggravating factor applied under the law a breach of habeas corpus? Are all aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines a breach?
Streeting to have a meeting with Starmer tomorrow morning and will speak after the Kings Speech
The Magna Carta/jury trials crowd are oddly quiet this evening.
So it looks like nothing will happen tonight. Maybe they’re hatching a plot to screw Burnham !
People did warn at the time.
It's risky, they have to be careful given how leader focused elections are, but they can and do. It's normal, and electoral authority is not a thing here. They're supposed to act on judgement between elections. What if a PM went mad?
Lots of MPs supporting Starmer want to come on the programme.
Nobody who wants Starmer to go wants to come on the programme - "We have rung them all".
Go now and I have the numbers and he cries. And you can be Attorney General'
IDK, if I were Starmer I'd want to screw Streeting more - at least Burnham orchestrates from outside Cabinet.
I think they’ve flubbed their chances. This will only move further if Burnham announces he’s going to try for the Commons again.
All the chaos and agony and dirty laundry laundering of a leadership election. Plus the spiking interest rates. And the impression of total flailing incompetence. Costing us billions
And at the end the total dud prime minister is still in situ. Clinging on
I really believe this could be the end of them forever. Who will forgive and forget this utter clown show
The retrial “enhancement” to enable the prosecution of the racist sociopaths who murdered Stephen Lawrence was a classic of cutting down laws to get at the Devil.
The grotesque system of the Home Sec depriving people of citizenship at whim.
You could even bring up the passing of laws which are rarely used, but held in reserve. Such as here. So if they feel like changing the pattern of charging, suddenly you can pick people up for decade.
These people in power are cretins and they can’t do anything
Expect Reform back in the 30s and Labour sub-15
The worst of all possible worlds probably lives in the gift of Reform or the Greens - I think equally.
Quite how sense prevails escapes me.
I am also having problems with posting on the main site