The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
A great comfort to us all.
Unless support for populist parties is not founded on careful statistical analysis but on visceral outrage at children being stabbed in the street, amplified by social media. Then it might make a difference.
So, what can we do about that?
Dunno. The ban on buying pointy knives has not helped. Turns out mum keeps a set in the kitchen, ready for use.
It is surely only a question of time before the government, fresh from demanding phone cameras that can't photograph nudes, extends the bar to filming punch-ups.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Lots of unused corporate seats.
To be fair, some pretty decent football matches. The World Cup is bloated, overhyped, far too costly and corrupt to the core, but like the Premier League it actually produces decent spectacle on the pitch.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
A great comfort to us all.
Unless support for populist parties is not founded on careful statistical analysis but on visceral outrage at children being stabbed in the street, amplified by social media. Then it might make a difference.
So, what can we do about that?
Well, when a hospital was shamed by patients being left so thirsty that they drank the water in flower vases, officialdom ensured it wouldn't happen again by banning flowers in hospitals.
So the obvious cure for this source of outrage is to prohibit any publication of the news. I think they call it a D notice.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
A great comfort to us all.
Unless support for populist parties is not founded on careful statistical analysis but on visceral outrage at children being stabbed in the street, amplified by social media. Then it might make a difference.
So, what can we do about that?
We could round up everyone involved in social media companies, strap them to a rocket and fire it into the Sun, though that might be controversial.
Saw this yesterday, which rather implies that the distrust of government that fuels populism is one of the prices we pay for a free press. The graph looks convincing and the mechanism plausible.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Good morning
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
Almost every game at the Rec (Bath) this season has been announced as a full house/sell out. Yet almost every game there are free seats around because season tickets don’t always come. So it can be true that all tickets are sold and that there are empty seats.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Good morning
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
Nationalising water is already priced in. The difficulty, and the reason it hasn't happened yet, is nationalising them without a major knock on effect on pension funds who foolishly bought this junk stock and rated it as gilts - notably the Local Government pension scheme. Otherwise, wiping out the shareholders and bondholders would be a good thing, especially if we can hurt the real villains (Macquarie) en route.
Energy companies may become inevitable too. Octopus, for example, has been struggling to hit OFGEM's capital ratios, while British Gas despite being micro-managed by Centrica (or because of it) appear to have been struggling to pay their debts even before OFGEM slapped them with a £20 million fine and unspecified compensation over falsified court documents. £20 million seems on the small side for what they did and I am assuming this is because OFGEM think they can't afford any more. So I'm not sure that's quite the killer you think it is.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
I am not a lawyer so I don't understand how their sentencing can possibly be legal.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Depends if he wants to excacerbate voter splits if he doesn't.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
A great comfort to us all.
Unless support for populist parties is not founded on careful statistical analysis but on visceral outrage at children being stabbed in the street, amplified by social media. Then it might make a difference.
So, what can we do about that?
We could round up everyone involved in social media companies, strap them to a rocket and fire it into the Sun, though that might be controversial.
Saw this yesterday, which rather implies that the distrust of government that fuels populism is one of the prices we pay for a free press. The graph looks convincing and the mechanism plausible.
(See Peter Cook's line on how successful the satirical scene of 1930s Berlin was in stopping the Nazis.)
Good zinger from Pete, otoh the sensible centrists, political sharp minds and establishment guys were just as unsuccessful. Indeed some of them were the Nazis’ little helpers.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
I am not a lawyer so I don't understand how their sentencing can possibly be legal.
All four were convicted of criminal damage and sentenced for that crime. One other sentenced for twatting a WPC.
People are whining because. From the BBC site.
‘ The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as being connected to terrorism.’
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Good morning
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
Nationalising water is already priced in. The difficulty, and the reason it hasn't happened yet, is nationalising them without a major knock on effect on pension funds who foolishly bought this junk stock and rated it as gilts - notably the Local Government pension scheme. Otherwise, wiping out the shareholders and bondholders would be a good thing, especially if we can hurt the real villains (Macquarie) en route.
Energy companies may become inevitable too. Octopus, for example, has been struggling to hit OFGEM's capital ratios, while British Gas despite being micro-managed by Centrica (or because of it) appear to have been struggling to pay their debts even before OFGEM slapped them with a £20 million fine and unspecified compensation over falsified court documents. £20 million seems on the small side for what they did and I am assuming this is because OFGEM think they can't afford any more. So I'm not sure that's quite the killer you think it is.
Thames Water as a percentage of pension fund assets is tiny and mainly written down in any case.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
Almost every game at the Rec (Bath) this season has been announced as a full house/sell out. Yet almost every game there are free seats around because season tickets don’t always come. So it can be true that all tickets are sold and that there are empty seats.
FIFA haven’t sold season tickets for the World Cup, but there will be a lot of allocation to sponsors and various partners, for some matches even the participant FAs, which are supposed to be returned if unused, but for the early group games might not happen. Add that a lot of the general sale has gone to ‘official touts’, with FIFA taking a cut of the resale, and it’s not difficult to imagine how the place might be half empty for a lot of matches.
The host nations and major European sides will likely be properly sold out, as will most of the later knockout matches. But small and/or poor nations aren’t going to get massive crowds to some of the world’s most expensve countries.
Probably the expansion from 32 to 48 teams is too much, there’s more than a hundred matches!
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Christ, it's even worse than I realised. The prosecution successfully applied for the motivation of these crimes to be excluded from the trial, before subsequently arguing for the sentencing to be based on that evidence. Insane.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
I am not a lawyer so I don't understand how their sentencing can possibly be legal.
All four were convicted of criminal damage and sentenced for that crime. One other sentenced for twatting a WPC.
People are whining because. From the BBC site.
‘ The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as being connected to terrorism.’
Isn’t it the post hoc classification of terrorism that people have a problem with? If I get a speeding ticket I don’t want a dangerous driving charge coming down the line after I’ve (reluctantly) paid the fine.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
Lies. Not what we read in the epstein files.
you gonna file this under ignore like trump repeatedly abusing teenage beauty parade contestants?
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Everyone should give a shit. It's the most important principle in a criminal justice system. You just don't have the imagination required to realise this.
Your post demonstrates that you don't understand - the jury wasn't asked to convict them on an act of terror, and the evidence of political motivation was deliberately excluded from the trial.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Everyone should give a shit. It's the most important principle in a criminal justice system. You just don't have the imagination required to realise this.
Your post demonstrates this - the jury wasn't asked to convict them on an act of terror, and the evidence of political motivation was deliberately excluded from the trial.
I couldn’t give a shit that there have not been WPCs for 27 years, which was what the comment was made in response too. Why would I. 😂😂
Holyrood’s new health committee convener has been criticised after a recently surfaced video shows her drawing a comparison between pregnant women seeking abortions and “feral cats”.
Ms McDade, Reform UK MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, who was elected convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Care and Sport Committee this week, also described the move to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales as "appalling".
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Yes, and that is the point. Try people for terrorism and let juries convict. What has happened here is they were found guilty of lesser offences after which the prosecution and judge conjured terrorism out of thin air to pass far stiffer sentences.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
I am not a lawyer so I don't understand how their sentencing can possibly be legal.
All four were convicted of criminal damage and sentenced for that crime. One other sentenced for twatting a WPC.
People are whining because. From the BBC site.
‘ The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as being connected to terrorism.’
Isn’t it the post hoc classification of terrorism that people have a problem with? If I get a speeding ticket I don’t want a dangerous driving charge coming down the line after I’ve (reluctantly) paid the fine.
That, and the fact that this post hoc classification is only applied to one type of violent protestor. Why isn't trying to burn down an ayslum hostel a terrorist offence? Blowing up ULEZ cameras? Both have underlying political motivations.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Yes, and that is the point. Try people for terrorism and let juries convict. What has happened here is they were found guilty of lesser offences after which the prosecution and judge conjured terrorism out of thin air to pass far stiffer sentences.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Yes, and that is the point. Try people for terrorism and let juries convict. What has happened here is they were found guilty of lesser offences after which the prosecution and judge conjured terrorism out of thin air to pass far stiffer sentences.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Stop denying there's a problem would be a good start. Remember the Brexit vote - that came after another deluge of stats which the public cared zilch about.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
Lies. Not what we read in the epstein files.
you gonna file this under ignore like trump repeatedly abusing teenage beauty parade contestants?
Surely it’s the beauty parade contestants’ fault for being nubile teenagers? Trump and his little helpers would say they were asking for it.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:
Epstein initiated the conversation, and Musk didn’t go to the island.
Which conversation? Epstein may have made initial contact (although the files we have cast doubt on that, they are not conclusive) but certainly on the evidence we have (rather than Musk's statements) it's certainly Musk that was angling for the invitation and Epstein kept putting him off.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?
The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
Yes, and that is the point. Try people for terrorism and let juries convict. What has happened here is they were found guilty of lesser offences after which the prosecution and judge conjured terrorism out of thin air to pass far stiffer sentences.
They’re tried for criminal damage but from the Beeb report the terrorism element was an aggravating factor as determined by the court.
“ Under the law, anyone guilty of a standard offence can receive a longer sentence if a court rules that the manner in which the crime was committed could be said to meet the definition of terrorism.”
Holyrood’s new health committee convener has been criticised after a recently surfaced video shows her drawing a comparison between pregnant women seeking abortions and “feral cats”.
Ms McDade, Reform UK MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, who was elected convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Care and Sport Committee this week, also described the move to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales as "appalling".
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:
Epstein initiated the conversation, and Musk didn’t go to the island.
Which conversation? Epstein may have made initial contact (although the files we have cast doubt on that, they are not conclusive) but certainly on the evidence we have (rather than Musk's statements) it's certainly Musk that was angling for the invitation and Epstein kept putting him off.
Otoh Musk proposed taking his wife/girlfriend along so even if he expected an orgy, it was probably not an underaged one he had in mind.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
The "terrorism" was only brought into it because the Zionist Entity was involved. That much is obvious.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:
Epstein initiated the conversation, and Musk didn’t go to the island.
Which conversation? Epstein may have made initial contact (although the files we have cast doubt on that, they are not conclusive) but certainly on the evidence we have (rather than Musk's statements) it's certainly Musk that was angling for the invitation and Epstein kept putting him off.
Otoh Musk proposed taking his wife/girlfriend along so even if he expected an orgy, it was probably not an underaged one he had in mind.
Someone once said that taking your wife to an orgy is like taking your own cookies to a restaurant.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire: the A-Team.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
A great comfort to us all.
Unless support for populist parties is not founded on careful statistical analysis but on visceral outrage at children being stabbed in the street, amplified by social media. Then it might make a difference.
So, what can we do about that?
We could round up everyone involved in social media companies, strap them to a rocket and fire it into the Sun, though that might be controversial.
Saw this yesterday, which rather implies that the distrust of government that fuels populism is one of the prices we pay for a free press. The graph looks convincing and the mechanism plausible.
(See Peter Cook's line on how successful the satirical scene of 1930s Berlin was in stopping the Nazis.)
A key question I suppose is how much you can trust people saying they trust the government in places where there is no freedom of the press.
I should address your point though. The much venerated John Stuart Mill was wrong I think in his assumption that unmoderated falsehoods would be exposed if allowed to air.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
The "terrorism" was only brought into it because the Zionist Entity was involved. That much is obvious.
Only a matter of time until the English judiciary introduces committing a blood libel onto the statute sheet.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire: the A-Team.
Aren't you the guy who made a massive fuss about Lammy trying to change jury trial sentencing requirements from 1 year to 3 years? See you on the barricades; we can exchange notes on real ale.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Tons of stabbings. Blades and horrific usage of same come up frequently in the history of crime (organised and otherwise) in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow…
The change is that, in the Goode Olde Days* such things were rarely reported in the “major” papers, unless they were especially egregious or happened to “decent people”**
As opposed to spammed to every discussion fora and going ping on your personal telephonic device.
*Which weren’t that good, really **yes, the definition of “decent” was a whole problem by itself.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Good morning
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
Nationalising water is already priced in. The difficulty, and the reason it hasn't happened yet, is nationalising them without a major knock on effect on pension funds who foolishly bought this junk stock and rated it as gilts - notably the Local Government pension scheme. Otherwise, wiping out the shareholders and bondholders would be a good thing, especially if we can hurt the real villains (Macquarie) en route.
Energy companies may become inevitable too. Octopus, for example, has been struggling to hit OFGEM's capital ratios, while British Gas despite being micro-managed by Centrica (or because of it) appear to have been struggling to pay their debts even before OFGEM slapped them with a £20 million fine and unspecified compensation over falsified court documents. £20 million seems on the small side for what they did and I am assuming this is because OFGEM think they can't afford any more. So I'm not sure that's quite the killer you think it is.
Thames Water as a percentage of pension fund assets is tiny and mainly written down in any case.
One of my very few direct interventions when I was a pension trustee was to direct the fund managers not to buy Thames Water bonds. In fairness to them they were offering a risk premium and this has gone on a lot longer than I expected but I am comfortable that was a good call.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
A great comfort to us all.
Unless support for populist parties is not founded on careful statistical analysis but on visceral outrage at children being stabbed in the street, amplified by social media. Then it might make a difference.
So, what can we do about that?
We could round up everyone involved in social media companies, strap them to a rocket and fire it into the Sun, though that might be controversial.
Saw this yesterday, which rather implies that the distrust of government that fuels populism is one of the prices we pay for a free press. The graph looks convincing and the mechanism plausible.
(See Peter Cook's line on how successful the satirical scene of 1930s Berlin was in stopping the Nazis.)
A key question I suppose is how much you can trust people saying they trust the government in places where there is no freedom of the press.
I should address your point though. The much venerated John Stuart Mill was wrong I think in his assumption that unmoderated falsehoods would be exposed if allowed to air.
Also, definitions of trust.
I would trust the Saudi Government to brutally repress opposition. Justice for minorities, much less so.
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
I think we knew on public murders, because cameras and newspapers still existed even if they didn't capture in "real time".
FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
Is the terrorism an aggravating factor such as racism? If someone is convicted of murder do the jury consider if it was racially motivated or is that for the judge in sentencing? You can argue that a case should be decided on the evidence - did person X do Y. Then apply the sentence. A jury acquiting because of sympathy for the cause (e.g. Colston 4) is part of the system, but it is challenging.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
Going up in the Good Old Days of the 70s to 90s, going down slightly since then.
And it's grimly sort-of reassuring that single horrible events/individuals (Shipman, Ryan, migrants in a lorry) show up as visible spikes.
None of which is any consolation to those who mourn, because every individual is important. But it's relevant for understanding if society is going to the dogs or not. And there is a perception/reality gap there, because the owners of our windows on the world have installed distorting windows.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
Almost every game at the Rec (Bath) this season has been announced as a full house/sell out. Yet almost every game there are free seats around because season tickets don’t always come. So it can be true that all tickets are sold and that there are empty seats.
yes pay exorbitant prices for tickets and don't bother turning up, pull the other one. It is one game ticket not a 36 or so ticket where missing odd game is not a loss.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
Is the terrorism an aggravating factor such as racism? If someone is convicted of murder do the jury consider if it was racially motivated or is that for the judge in sentencing? You can argue that a case should be decided on the evidence - did person X do Y. Then apply the sentence. A jury acquiting because of sympathy for the cause (e.g. Colston 4) is part of the system, but it is challenging.
I think that would be fine if the judge explained that rather than concealing it. And yes, it is challenging but that is jury trials for you.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Nah, the Teddy boys were a bit before then and the football casuals a bit after.
Casual violence has declined, which is a good thing.
Terrorism has probably declined too, tbh, which is also a good thing.
That doesn't mean we should brush aside horrific attacks like Belfast because we want to hold on to cherished beliefs about the enrichment immigration offers us, which is all @bondegezou cares about.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
Not really. If someone is charged and taken to trial for dangerous driving the jury are told that they have the option of convicting of careless driving in the alternative and the difference is explained.
I think the problem with the English case, and I have not read it thoroughly, is that the motive for the offence is not relevant to the question of guilt. You either did it or you didn't and that is what the jury decides. But it is relevant to sentence and to any risk assessment that arises on conviction. It does seem odd though that having chosen not to put terrorism charges on the indictment they are then treated as if they were terrorists.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
I think we knew on public murders, because cameras and newspapers still existed even if they didn't capture in "real time".
FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
I think we knew on public murders, because cameras and newspapers still existed even if they didn't capture in "real time".
FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:
I think makerfield will go to the wire . Mrs Duffy is about to chose the PM
That encounter perfectly symbolised the disillusionment of working-class Labour voters, and the alienation felt as a result of the party's perceived detachment from their everyday concerns, which Brown so memorably validated.
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?
Start warming up the school busses!
America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?
Are you thinking of some pedo guy?
No. Musk is the ket guy.
He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.
Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
Not really. If someone is charged and taken to trial for dangerous driving the jury are told that they have the option of convicting of careless driving in the alternative and the difference is explained.
I think the problem with the English case, and I have not read it thoroughly, is that the motive for the offence is not relevant to the question of guilt. You either did it or you didn't and that is what the jury decides. But it is relevant to sentence and to any risk assessment that arises on conviction. It does seem odd though that having chosen not to put terrorism charges on the indictment they are then treated as if they were terrorists.
I think we are in agreement on the driving analogy, and I obviously can't do as good a job as explaining it as you did.
I think it's obvious why they didn't charge on that basis - they know juries don't think this stuff is terrorism (particularly the criminal damage) but want to get that result anyway. This mechanism allows it, and it's particularly attractive because the CPS can pick and choose which political motivations they don't like. I don't say that lightly - I just can't dismiss the blatant inconsistency in the sentencing approach.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
I think we knew on public murders, because cameras and newspapers still existed even if they didn't capture in "real time".
FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:
There's a big spike in 2003. Initially my mind jumped to the 7/7 terror attacks, but they were in 2005 and those are probably captured differently.
How does that rebut what I said? The most recent figures (2025) show the lowest homicide rate since 1977. The figures have been coming down. So, yes, they were higher two years ago. I wasn’t claiming the figures two years ago were the lowest since 1977.
I think makerfield will go to the wire . Mrs Duffy is about to chose the PM
That encounter perfectly symbolised the disillusionment of working-class Labour voters, and the alienation felt as a result of the party's perceived detachment from their everyday concerns, which Brown so memorably validated.
It explains Reform.
There's a parallel with the SNP who started life as a right leaning party (Tartan Tories). They then pivoted left towards Labour voters and now sit there on the left. You could also argue it was the formula for the LibDems. A quite right leaning but declining Liberal Party merges with the left leaning SDP.
Whether Reform and the SNP eventually suffer the LibDem fate (always the bridesmaid) time will tell.
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)
Rank
Country
National Net Wealth (US$ trillions, approx.)
1
United States
156
2
Japan
25
3
Germany
20
4
United Kingdom
17
5
France
16
6
Canada
13
7
Italy
12
8
South Korea
11
9
Australia
10
10
Spain
9
11
Netherlands
6
12
Switzerland
5
13
Belgium
3
14
Sweden
3
15
Denmark
2.5
16
Norway
2.4
17
Poland
2
18
Austria
2
19
Israel
1.8
20
Turkey
1.7
21
Portugal
1.5
22
New Zealand
1.4
23
Ireland
1.2
24
Czech Republic
1.1
25
Finland
0.9
26
Greece
0.8
27
Hungary
0.5
28
Slovakia
0.4
29
Slovenia
0.3
30
Lithuania
0.3
Indeed.
But that’s a bit too nuanced for much of the meeja (!) “Bit richer than Finland@ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Nah, the Teddy boys were a bit before then and the football casuals a bit after.
Casual violence has declined, which is a good thing.
Terrorism has probably declined too, tbh, which is also a good thing.
That doesn't mean we should brush aside horrific attacks like Belfast because we want to hold on to cherished beliefs about the enrichment immigration offers us, which is all @bondegezou cares about.
My comment was in reply to a post about an attack in Lancashire. As far as I know, we know nothing about the ethnicity or immigration status of the attacker.
We shouldn’t brush aside horrific attacks, but we should also acknowledge that the overall picture is improving.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
Not really. If someone is charged and taken to trial for dangerous driving the jury are told that they have the option of convicting of careless driving in the alternative and the difference is explained.
I think the problem with the English case, and I have not read it thoroughly, is that the motive for the offence is not relevant to the question of guilt. You either did it or you didn't and that is what the jury decides. But it is relevant to sentence and to any risk assessment that arises on conviction. It does seem odd though that having chosen not to put terrorism charges on the indictment they are then treated as if they were terrorists.
I think we are in agreement on the driving analogy, and I obviously can't do as good a job as explaining it as you did.
I think it's obvious why they didn't charge on that basis - they know juries don't think this stuff is terrorism (particularly the criminal damage) but want to get that result anyway. This mechanism allows it, and it's particularly attractive because the CPS can pick and choose which political motivations they don't like. I don't say that lightly - I just can't dismiss the blatant inconsistency in the sentencing approach.
Its not unique. So, in sexual offences, is someone has a bad record or is assessed as being a serious risk (neither of which the jury will know about when making their decisions) then they can get an order for life long restriction which imposes a lot of limitations on them even when they get out of jail. So, there can be factors the court has to take into account that the jury don't. This does seem an extreme case though.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Good morning
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
Utilities were publicly owned
Stolen and Thatcher ruined by greed and corruption.
Labour should take back in to public ownership paying shareholders a minimal peppercorn sum
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Nah, the Teddy boys were a bit before then and the football casuals a bit after.
This was 1975 but I think it could qualify as an attempted public beheading (ending in death in this case). Maybe because it was in the Irish part of the UK it doesn't count.
'Murphy repeatedly told Crossin: "I'm going to kill you, you bastard", before the taxi stopped at an entry off Wimbledon Street. Crossin was dragged into an alleyway and Murphy, brandishing a butcher's knife, cut his throat almost through to the spine.'
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)
Rank
Country
National Net Wealth (US$ trillions, approx.)
1
United States
156
2
Japan
25
3
Germany
20
4
United Kingdom
17
5
France
16
6
Canada
13
7
Italy
12
8
South Korea
11
9
Australia
10
10
Spain
9
11
Netherlands
6
12
Switzerland
5
13
Belgium
3
14
Sweden
3
15
Denmark
2.5
16
Norway
2.4
17
Poland
2
18
Austria
2
19
Israel
1.8
20
Turkey
1.7
21
Portugal
1.5
22
New Zealand
1.4
23
Ireland
1.2
24
Czech Republic
1.1
25
Finland
0.9
26
Greece
0.8
27
Hungary
0.5
28
Slovakia
0.4
29
Slovenia
0.3
30
Lithuania
0.3
China? Russia? India? Saudi? et al?
That’s what I could find. China and Russia would be very hard to do, given fiddling with numbers by the state. Saudi would be their oil reserves, which they lie about. India would be possible - but couldn’t find the data.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
I am not sure you account is full and complete. But whatever:
1) They can appeal 2) Sentencing takes account of circumstances; the judge does not normally ask the jury's view of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances 3) Relatedly, I just note that the Liberty talking head on R4 Today this morning was loquacious on all subjects except one, where she pivoted and and no commented on the GBH aspect of the case.
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)
Rank
Country
National Net Wealth (US$ trillions, approx.)
1
United States
156
2
Japan
25
3
Germany
20
4
United Kingdom
17
5
France
16
6
Canada
13
7
Italy
12
8
South Korea
11
9
Australia
10
10
Spain
9
11
Netherlands
6
12
Switzerland
5
13
Belgium
3
14
Sweden
3
15
Denmark
2.5
16
Norway
2.4
17
Poland
2
18
Austria
2
19
Israel
1.8
20
Turkey
1.7
21
Portugal
1.5
22
New Zealand
1.4
23
Ireland
1.2
24
Czech Republic
1.1
25
Finland
0.9
26
Greece
0.8
27
Hungary
0.5
28
Slovakia
0.4
29
Slovenia
0.3
30
Lithuania
0.3
Indeed.
But that’s a bit too nuanced for much of the meeja (!) “Bit richer than Finland@ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
Then again, “Personally richer than Finland” is fairly startling in its own way
The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.
Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?
Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
I think we knew on public murders, because cameras and newspapers still existed even if they didn't capture in "real time".
FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:
There's a big spike in 2003. Initially my mind jumped to the 7/7 terror attacks, but they were in 2005 and those are probably captured differently.
How does that rebut what I said? The most recent figures (2025) show the lowest homicide rate since 1977. The figures have been coming down. So, yes, they were higher two years ago. I wasn’t claiming the figures two years ago were the lowest since 1977.
You will if we go deep. No true patriot can remain unmoved in that event. Bet you any money I'm right. You might not be able to get into the football itself but you'll be rooting hard for us to do it. Just simply because of the joy it will bring to so many English people.
Probably, but that will be for different reasons to the love of football.
Which I just don't have.
I don't love football but I do like it. I think that objectively it is the best sport. There's a reason it is the most widely played game in the world.
I think it's the simplest ball game - jumpers for goalposts, sort of thing - and so it's the easiest to set up and play in any space, with any number of people. This also extends to being a game that's easy to play without a referee - an informal game of cricket abandons lbw, for example, because there's no umpire to adjudicate.
Low barriers to enter are how you get mass participation. That's a widely applicable lesson.
Healy and Carns resigning, with blistering letters to the PM, was about the worst case scenario for No.10.
No-one would have mourned Reeves or Miliband walking away.
On what possible planet would Reeves have resigned? Her only hope of remaining as chancellor is for Starmer to stay on.
Does Reeves want to remain Chancellor for an extra few weeks or would she fancy three years of first class flights and state banquets as Foreign Secretary to a grateful Wes Streeting Andy Burnham? Or even, since this is Labour, a chance to build something running a spending department – whether you like what Miliband, Phillipson and Streeting have done or not, at least they've done something.
Too late - she’s too politically damaged and too closely associated with Starmer for Burnham to offer her a job.
We'll see. I'm not convinced Burnham will want to exacerbate party splits on day one.
Good morning
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
Utilities were publicly owned
Stolen and Thatcher ruined by greed and corruption.
Labour should take back in to public ownership paying shareholders a minimal peppercorn sum
Power to the People
Bringing accountability back
Some of us are old enough to remember 1980s British Telecom, where you’d wait three months for line to be installed, it would end up being a shared party line, and you’d better be damn grateful they were kind enough to give you service in the first place.
Privatisation and competition were the best things to ever happen to utilities.
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.
And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.
Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.
Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)
Rank
Country
National Net Wealth (US$ trillions, approx.)
1
United States
156
2
Japan
25
3
Germany
20
4
United Kingdom
17
5
France
16
6
Canada
13
7
Italy
12
8
South Korea
11
9
Australia
10
10
Spain
9
11
Netherlands
6
12
Switzerland
5
13
Belgium
3
14
Sweden
3
15
Denmark
2.5
16
Norway
2.4
17
Poland
2
18
Austria
2
19
Israel
1.8
20
Turkey
1.7
21
Portugal
1.5
22
New Zealand
1.4
23
Ireland
1.2
24
Czech Republic
1.1
25
Finland
0.9
26
Greece
0.8
27
Hungary
0.5
28
Slovakia
0.4
29
Slovenia
0.3
30
Lithuania
0.3
Source? Since no China, Russia, I am assuming OECD, can you confirm?
ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
I am not sure you account is full and complete. But whatever:
1) They can appeal 2) Sentencing takes account of circumstances; the judge does not normally ask the jury's view of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances 3) Relatedly, I just note that the Liberty talking head on R4 Today this morning was loquacious on all subjects except one, where she pivoted and and no commented on the GBH aspect of the case.
1) Yes, and? If it gets overturned on appeal it’s even more egregious because the system has failed in the first instance 2) It’s not an aggravating factor, it’s a different crime. There are people with simple criminal damage convictions being locked up for terrorism. It has lifelong implications. 3) That’s entirely beside the point. The guy was charged with GBH, evidence was put to the jury, and he was rightly convicted.
Comments
It is surely only a question of time before the government, fresh from demanding phone cameras that can't photograph nudes, extends the bar to filming punch-ups.
To be fair, some pretty decent football matches. The World Cup is bloated, overhyped, far too costly and corrupt to the core, but like the Premier League it actually produces decent spectacle on the pitch.
So the obvious cure for this source of outrage is to prohibit any publication of the news. I think they call it a D notice.
Edit typo
Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.
I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.
The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.
Saw this yesterday, which rather implies that the distrust of government that fuels populism is one of the prices we pay for a free press. The graph looks convincing and the mechanism plausible.
https://bsky.app/profile/warringfictions.bsky.social/post/3mo3s54p45k2t
(See Peter Cook's line on how successful the satirical scene of 1930s Berlin was in stopping the Nazis.)
I suspect the bond market's patience is going to be stretched to breaking point in the next few weeks, especially if Burnham carries out his threat to nationalise water and energy
This also wasn’t ‘homicide’.
Energy companies may become inevitable too. Octopus, for example, has been struggling to hit OFGEM's capital ratios, while British Gas despite being micro-managed by Centrica (or because of it) appear to have been struggling to pay their debts even before OFGEM slapped them with a £20 million fine and unspecified compensation over falsified court documents. £20 million seems on the small side for what they did and I am assuming this is because OFGEM think they can't afford any more. So I'm not sure that's quite the killer you think it is.
She's toxic.
Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.
We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.
People are whining because. From the BBC site.
‘ The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as being connected to terrorism.’
The host nations and major European sides will likely be properly sold out, as will most of the later knockout matches. But small and/or poor nations aren’t going to get massive crowds to some of the world’s most expensve countries.
Probably the expansion from 32 to 48 teams is too much, there’s more than a hundred matches!
If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/expressed-interest-visiting-jeffrey-epstein-island-emails-show-doj-rcna256784
you gonna file this under ignore like trump repeatedly abusing teenage beauty parade contestants?
Your post demonstrates that you don't understand - the jury wasn't asked to convict them on an act of terror, and the evidence of political motivation was deliberately excluded from the trial.
“ Under the law, anyone guilty of a standard offence can receive a longer sentence if a court rules that the manner in which the crime was committed could be said to meet the definition of terrorism.”
https://x.com/scottygb/status/2065529025229930924
He’d have been proud of that! RIP.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire: the A-Team.
I should address your point though. The much venerated John Stuart Mill was wrong I think in his assumption that unmoderated falsehoods would be exposed if allowed to air.
However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.
I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.
The change is that, in the Goode Olde Days* such things were rarely reported in the “major” papers, unless they were especially egregious or happened to “decent people”**
As opposed to spammed to every discussion fora and going ping on your personal telephonic device.
*Which weren’t that good, really
**yes, the definition of “decent” was a whole problem by itself.
But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.
I would trust the Saudi Government to brutally repress opposition. Justice for minorities, much less so.
The U.K. government, the reverse.
FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2025
There's a big spike in 2003. Initially my mind jumped to the 7/7 terror attacks, but they were in 2005 and those are probably captured differently.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2024
Going up in the Good Old Days of the 70s to 90s, going down slightly since then.
And it's grimly sort-of reassuring that single horrible events/individuals (Shipman, Ryan, migrants in a lorry) show up as visible spikes.
None of which is any consolation to those who mourn, because every individual is important. But it's relevant for understanding if society is going to the dogs or not. And there is a perception/reality gap there, because the owners of our windows on the world have installed distorting windows.
Terrorism has probably declined too, tbh, which is also a good thing.
That doesn't mean we should brush aside horrific attacks like Belfast because we want to hold on to cherished beliefs about the enrichment immigration offers us, which is all @bondegezou cares about.
I think the problem with the English case, and I have not read it thoroughly, is that the motive for the offence is not relevant to the question of guilt. You either did it or you didn't and that is what the jury decides. But it is relevant to sentence and to any risk assessment that arises on conviction. It does seem odd though that having chosen not to put terrorism charges on the indictment they are then treated as if they were terrorists.
It explains Reform.
(US$ trillions, approx.)
https://x.com/anthropicai/status/2065597531644743999
I’m sure everyone in UK and Europe calling for more AI regulation will be happy with this one. Right?
I think it's obvious why they didn't charge on that basis - they know juries don't think this stuff is terrorism (particularly the criminal damage) but want to get that result anyway. This mechanism allows it, and it's particularly attractive because the CPS can pick and choose which political motivations they don't like. I don't say that lightly - I just can't dismiss the blatant inconsistency in the sentencing approach.
Whether Reform and the SNP eventually suffer the LibDem fate (always the bridesmaid) time will tell.
But that’s a bit too nuanced for much of the meeja (!) “Bit richer than Finland@ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
We shouldn’t brush aside horrific attacks, but we should also acknowledge that the overall picture is improving.
Stolen and Thatcher ruined by greed and corruption.
Labour should take back in to public ownership paying shareholders a minimal peppercorn sum
Power to the People
Bringing accountability back
'Murphy repeatedly told Crossin: "I'm going to kill you, you bastard", before the taxi stopped at an entry off Wimbledon Street. Crossin was dragged into an alleyway and Murphy, brandishing a butcher's knife, cut his throat almost through to the spine.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
1) They can appeal
2) Sentencing takes account of circumstances; the judge does not normally ask the jury's view of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances
3) Relatedly, I just note that the Liberty talking head on R4 Today this morning was loquacious on all subjects except one, where she pivoted and and no commented on the GBH aspect of the case.
Low barriers to enter are how you get mass participation. That's a widely applicable lesson.
Privatisation and competition were the best things to ever happen to utilities.
2) It’s not an aggravating factor, it’s a different crime. There are people with simple criminal damage convictions being locked up for terrorism. It has lifelong implications.
3) That’s entirely beside the point. The guy was charged with GBH, evidence was put to the jury, and he was rightly convicted.