FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Mon 23 Jul, 2018 7:36 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Friday 5th January 2018
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
I was being asked about Worboys last night, and so went and thought about it. I wrote a short twitter thread.

I do think we need to know why Starmer as DPP took the original decision not to prosecute for the other offences. If it was because it was not in the public interest because Worboys was already on an IPP, we should be told.

https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status ... 0216184833


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 8:43 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
It is also a sign of the times that the relevant questions are being asked by Yvette Cooper, and not by any of Labour's crack frontbench justice team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 5987
Has thanked: 2064 times
Been thanked: 9888 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
It is also a sign of the times that the relevant questions are being asked by Yvette Cooper, and not by any of Labour's crack frontbench justice team.

Why is that a sign of the times?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
Morning

Cooper is head of the select committee isn't she? - I think things like this should not be made party political which is clearly Hugo's desire - he is following the same approach as Priiti Patel which says a lot

Cooper is best placed to ask these questions on behalf of parliament and not on behalf of the party

I find also the focus on Starmer to be quite transparent and we all know the motivation for that

In order to be released he had to be deemed to be no threat so there is a question for the parole board on why that was deemed to be the case and a transparency on why that decision was taken. It is a fair question and would be the main one to answer

The reasons for why< prosecutions were not made in the other alleged cases is potentially another area to understand - but this is a more comoplicated and convoluted discussion as IPP were in place t the time and we cannot ignore that just because they weren't like. The décisions would have been taken in that environment. There is also Nothing to prevent or have prevented a review of that decision when IPP were abolished

I try to avoid commenting on legal cases like this as we have not seen or heard the evidence that the police have - and we probably never will

I welcome transparency on decision making but we also have to put our trust in the experts - and if there are issues then they are properly investigated and the lessons learnt

Individual cases should not be politicised for the sake of it unless there is clear evidence of mistakes being made

There is an overall issue of the lack of convictions of perpetrators of sexual crimes and that is a real concern


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7197
Has thanked: 4388 times
Been thanked: 16692 times
Yes, I agree - keep this above party politics - Cooper is the right one to take it forward.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 9:31 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Yes, I agree - keep this above party politics - Cooper is the right one to take it forward.



Why are criminal justice questions no longer part of the remit of the opposition frontbench?

The reason for Worboys early release is probably IPPs, which were a scandal, and for which Labour was responsible.

It is party political.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 9:35 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7197
Has thanked: 4388 times
Been thanked: 16692 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Yes, I agree - keep this above party politics - Cooper is the right one to take it forward.



Why are criminal justice questions no longer part of the remit of the opposition frontbench?

The reason for Worboys early release is probably IPPs, which were a scandal, and for which Labour was responsible.

It is party political.


And oddly enough, given your slavish devotion to the era, introduced under Blair...

How is questioning the parole board decision "party political"?

Unless of course you're making this all about Starmer who it seems you cannot abide...is there something you're not telling us I wonder?

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 9:41 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Yes, I agree - keep this above party politics - Cooper is the right one to take it forward.



Why are criminal justice questions no longer part of the remit of the opposition frontbench?

The reason for Worboys early release is probably IPPs, which were a scandal, and for which Labour was responsible.

It is party political.


And oddly enough, given your slavish devotion to the era, introduced under Blair...

How is questioning the parole board decision "party political"?

Unless of course you're making this all about Starmer who it seems you cannot abide...is there something you're not telling us I wonder?



I don't think it is the parole boards fault, no, though Cooper is right that the public have an interest in knowing their reasons.

And yes, IPPs were the fault of the Blair government, and the Evil Coalition government was definitely right to abolish them.

Is Starmer personally to blame for IPPs? No. But if, as I suspect, he made the decision not to prosecute based on the fact Worboys was on an IPP, that is what has now caused his early release. I don't know whether I'd have made the same decision as Starmer, he saw the evidence for the other potential offences, I didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
And RoT, it is a bit off, imo, to sarcastically ask "where's our legal expert", I take the trouble to give an answer (and I wasn't over critical of Starmer, IPPs weren't his fault) and then moan about that as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7197
Has thanked: 4388 times
Been thanked: 16692 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
And RoT, it is a bit off, imo, to sarcastically ask "where's our legal expert", I take the trouble to give an answer (and I wasn't over critical of Starmer, IPPs weren't his fault) and then moan about that as well.


You could, of course, volunteered an opinion before being asked.

Here's Starmer's reaction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42574651

Quote:
Speaking outside his home on Friday, the shadow Brexit secretary said: "First and foremost, it's very important that if there are any allegations that anybody thinks have not been looked into, sufficiently or at all, they go to the police and make those allegations so they can be looked into.

"The second important thing is that it's really important that what's said is factually accurate.

"As you know, the Crown Prosecution Service holds the file on this case, they made the decisions in the case, and it is really important you go to them to get an accurate read-out of the decisions that have been made."

Asked whether he thought the right decision was made by prosecutors, he added: "I think these decisions were nine years ago and it's very important you go to the Crown Prosecution Service and get an accurate read-out of the decisions that were made, particularly if further allegations have been made now."

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
And RoT, it is a bit off, imo, to sarcastically ask "where's our legal expert", I take the trouble to give an answer (and I wasn't over critical of Starmer, IPPs weren't his fault) and then moan about that as well.



Well I do not believe you are a 'legal expert' at all from the quality of your posts

I know barristers and solicitors who are as sharp as tacks and you are very far from that - probably the weakest contributor to this board

There is a political aspect around the framework decisions are taken. So the introduction of IPP Something a Government would take accountability for - also any laws or decrees that emanate from Government as well

So, if the parole board released him because they were told to do so, or the guidance from Government says they should do that then there is a political aspect.

If though the parole board took their decision working within their remit then they are accountable and may need to provide more explanation. The same goes for the decision to (or not to) prosecute but I would venture that is not Something that can easily be assessed without a real thorough case review

Starmer took his decision when IPP were in place and in that environment. If IPP were abolished and the presumption is then that all convicted would be released at minimum sentence then the cases should have been reviewed under that context.

Your focus on Starmer is noticeable and the previous evidence suggests you, like your intellectual equivalent Priti Patel, have an agenda - which again undermines your claims to be some sort of legal expert


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 10:23 am 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
Quote:
Is Starmer personally to blame for IPPs? No. But if, as I suspect, he made the decision not to prosecute based on the fact Worboys was on an IPP, that is what has now caused his early release. I don't
And oddly enough, given your slavish devotion to the era, introduced under Blair...

How is questioning the parole board decision "party political"?
know whether I'd have made the same decision as Starmer, he saw the evidence for the other potential offences, I didn't


Your first post and that weak twitter thread were all about Starmer so for you to now pretend you are being fair is ridiculous

If he made the decision when IPP were in place then that is the legal Framework at the time that he made his decision - should he be blamed for not having foreseen their abolition?

You seem to absolve the parole board for a decision taken yesterday in today's environment but try to question a decision taken by the CPS nine years ago under a different one - quite bizarre?

I have one question - 'do the IPP criteria for release still apply after they have been abolished, or is it now the presumption all will be released at minimum sentence?'. If the former then it is a parole board accountability to ensure the criteria are met.

If it is a latter then the case files should have been consulted at the time that decision was taken to ensure there were no potential cases outstanding

That I think is what Cooper is essentially asking - what criteria were used for the release and were they the same assumptions as at sentencing?

This is non-political

Also the fact that the Tories abolished something illiberal from the Blair Government perhaps makes you understand why some of us didn't particularly like his version of labour


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4886
Has thanked: 10127 times
Been thanked: 12017 times
Morning.

I think I found this article on twitter, but if I came across it here and am repeating it, apologies, but I get muddled sometimes where I first read something!

Anyway, it's pretty relevant giving the growing housing crisis:

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ssion=true
Anti-homeless spikes: ‘Sleeping rough opened my eyes to the city’s barbed cruelty’

Quite a bit of the article is pretty depressing about the direction UK society is going, so this bit cheered me up rather as it suggests another way is at least possible, though it feels a long way off right now:

Quote:
A ray of hope from Vancouver – benches that unfold into shelters and read “This is a bench” during the day, but light up to reveal “This is a bedroom” at night. Perhaps a small step on what David Harvey, author of Social Justice and the City, calls the “path from an urbanism based on exploitation to an urbanism appropriate for the human species”.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline
Secretary of State

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 10:49 am
Posts: 1203
Has thanked: 486 times
Been thanked: 1837 times
A little light relief here:

Quote:
Nigel Farage asks Twitter for questions for Michel Barnier - with predictable results

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... el-barnier

I particularly like this response:

Quote:
Tim Concannon
@TimCWrites
Replying to @Nigel_Farage @MichelBarnier
Mr Barnier, Why would a group of rich tax dodgers, shady tech billionaires, nom dom press barons, intelligence chiefs in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, and Russian oligarchs want the UK to leave the EU, just as you close tax loop holes? I'm stumped. #AskBarnier

8:29 PM - Jan 4, 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
I was being asked about Worboys last night, and so went and thought about it. I wrote a short twitter thread.

I do think we need to know why Starmer as DPP took the original decision not to prosecute for the other offences. If it was because it was not in the public interest because Worboys was already on an IPP, we should be told.

https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status ... 0216184833


As there are other offences, did he "declare" them (or whatever the legal term is that stops them being used in the future) or is the position now that he could be re-arrested for those crimes and be put on trial again ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7592
Has thanked: 759 times
Been thanked: 16332 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
It is also a sign of the times that the relevant questions are being asked by Yvette Cooper, and not by any of Labour's crack frontbench justice team.


An exceptionally lame "point". Even from you ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
And RoT, it is a bit off, imo, to sarcastically ask "where's our legal expert", I take the trouble to give an answer (and I wasn't over critical of Starmer, IPPs weren't his fault) and then moan about that as well.


You could, of course, volunteered an opinion before being asked.

Here's Starmer's reaction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42574651

Quote:
Speaking outside his home on Friday, the shadow Brexit secretary said: "First and foremost, it's very important that if there are any allegations that anybody thinks have not been looked into, sufficiently or at all, they go to the police and make those allegations so they can be looked into.

"The second important thing is that it's really important that what's said is factually accurate.

"As you know, the Crown Prosecution Service holds the file on this case, they made the decisions in the case, and it is really important you go to them to get an accurate read-out of the decisions that have been made."

Asked whether he thought the right decision was made by prosecutors, he added: "I think these decisions were nine years ago and it's very important you go to the Crown Prosecution Service and get an accurate read-out of the decisions that were made, particularly if further allegations have been made now."


I really don't think that is very good.

The first point is irrelevant. There are no new allegations. Nobody says there are. The issue is about the complaints that were made but which were never prosecuted. Why not? For lack of evidence or because not in the public interest? If the latter, why not?


The secod seems to imply that he had nothing to do with the decision. Maybe as DPP he just rubber stamped it, but it would be very surprising if he had no responsibility at all.

And "read out".

I suspect he has no recollection of why he decided as he did, he must have seen hundreds of cases.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think the blame here probably lies with the old IPP sentences, and they were introduced by Blunkett.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
It is also a sign of the times that the relevant questions are being asked by Yvette Cooper, and not by any of Labour's crack frontbench justice team.


An exceptionally lame "point". Even from you ;)



Why so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:15 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 3400 times
Two things

I can't find any more up to date figures but the most recent ones, from earlier in the decade, suggest that the average sentence for rape is 8 years. That would suggest that the average time served is less, obviously, and would suggest that if Worboys had been sentenced without IPP he may well have got a similar tariff - the current guideline is 4 years to 19 years. If he'd been sentenced to the maximum, and the same considerations were made that are being made for his 'safe' release now, he might serve an extra 18 months. I don't think this case is the problem with rape and justice.

And there's an interesting line in one of the Business live blog reports in the guardian, considering why car sales are down... A drop in PPI claims has also cut the number of people with one-off lump sums to spend. I've half remember stories before about how significant PPI payouts were to UK GDP in the last decade - there's a story here from the Telegraph from 2012 but I can't immediately find anything more recent.

_________________
Most things are never meant.
This won’t be, most likely; but greeds
And garbage are too thick-strewn
To be swept up now, or invent
Excuses that make them all needs.
I just think it will happen, soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Statement from the parole board (who are not, I promise, a bunch of sofites)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/paro ... hn-worboys


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:34 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7592
Has thanked: 759 times
Been thanked: 16332 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
It is also a sign of the times that the relevant questions are being asked by Yvette Cooper, and not by any of Labour's crack frontbench justice team.


An exceptionally lame "point". Even from you ;)



Why so?


Because it would be normal - or at least far from unknown - for somebody in Cooper's position to lead on this?

Quite likely she has agreed this approach with the leadership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
adam wrote:
Two things

I can't find any more up to date figures but the most recent ones, from earlier in the decade, suggest that the average sentence for rape is 8 years. That would suggest that the average time served is less, obviously, and would suggest that if Worboys had been sentenced without IPP he may well have got a similar tariff - the current guideline is 4 years to 19 years. If he'd been sentenced to the maximum, and the same considerations were made that are being made for his 'safe' release now, he might serve an extra 18 months. I don't think this case is the problem with rape and justice.

And there's an interesting line in one of the Business live blog reports in the guardian, considering why car sales are down... A drop in PPI claims has also cut the number of people with one-off lump sums to spend. I've half remember stories before about how significant PPI payouts were to UK GDP in the last decade - there's a story here from the Telegraph from 2012 but I can't immediately find anything more recent.



You can give life imprisonment for rape. Worboys' case was so serious that without IPP I am pretty sure he would have been given life.

Life, of course, doesn't always mean life, as the Daily Mail constantly reminds us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline
Home Secretary

Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:15 pm
Posts: 1669
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 3400 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
adam wrote:
Two things

I can't find any more up to date figures but the most recent ones, from earlier in the decade, suggest that the average sentence for rape is 8 years. That would suggest that the average time served is less, obviously, and would suggest that if Worboys had been sentenced without IPP he may well have got a similar tariff - the current guideline is 4 years to 19 years. If he'd been sentenced to the maximum, and the same considerations were made that are being made for his 'safe' release now, he might serve an extra 18 months. I don't think this case is the problem with rape and justice.

And there's an interesting line in one of the Business live blog reports in the guardian, considering why car sales are down... A drop in PPI claims has also cut the number of people with one-off lump sums to spend. I've half remember stories before about how significant PPI payouts were to UK GDP in the last decade - there's a story here from the Telegraph from 2012 but I can't immediately find anything more recent.



You can give life imprisonment for rape. Worboys' case was so serious that without IPP I am pretty sure he would have been given life.

Life, of course, doesn't always mean life, as the Daily Mail constantly reminds us.


Apologies, you're right, I misread the page in the sentencing guidelines. Maximum life, sentence range 4-19 years. Again, even if he'd been given a tariff of 19 years on a discretionary life sentence the parole board would have been making the same difficult decision on the same set of facts at around the same time - so I think although I misread the page my point still holds.

_________________
Most things are never meant.
This won’t be, most likely; but greeds
And garbage are too thick-strewn
To be swept up now, or invent
Excuses that make them all needs.
I just think it will happen, soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
If people are more comfortable with something anti-Tory, the major problem with someone like Worboys is the probation service. The cuts under Grayling mean that it is badly damaged. there will, eventually, be a serious scandal as a result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14839
Has thanked: 81898 times
Been thanked: 13500 times
Good-morning, everyone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7197
Has thanked: 4388 times
Been thanked: 16692 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
I really don't think that is very good.

The first point is irrelevant. There are no new allegations. Nobody says there are. The issue is about the complaints that were made but which were never prosecuted. Why not? For lack of evidence or because not in the public interest? If the latter, why not?


The secod seems to imply that he had nothing to do with the decision. Maybe as DPP he just rubber stamped it, but it would be very surprising if he had no responsibility at all.

And "read out".

I suspect he has no recollection of why he decided as he did, he must have seen hundreds of cases.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think the blame here probably lies with the old IPP sentences, and they were introduced by Blunkett.



If I made a decision 8-9 years ago and then someone asked me about it now I would have to refer back to paperwork to remind myself.

In this case, I presume he can't because he has no access to them. Therefore he must be right when he says that it's up to he CPS to put out a statement on the reasons why they decided not to prosecute the other cases.

If however, the CPS say "We wanted to prosecute but the DPP said no" then Starmer would have "questions to answer".

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
RoT

Exactly......I think that any professional would say the same thing. Does he have the right to comment on this any further than he has as he is no longer an employee....it is for the CPS to reply.

I don't think anyone here has tried to make this anti-any political party apart from you Hugo - your eagerness to raise this and link to your pathetic twitter thread only talks about Starmer and Nothing else

This situation is one of those things are legal system throws up now and again and hopefully some lessons, if they are relevant, will be learnt.

Clearly some errors in communication with victims were made

Pehaps. more questions will need to be answered but they are not clear as to what and who can provide those answers

Your whole motivation here was to attack Starmer - that is quite clear - and no-one seems to be joining you on that, or looking to attack anyone else either in what seems to be a difficult situation - mind you, Priti Patel has 'demanded' the same things from Starmer that you have which indicates to me your intellectual level and expertise in the area


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20525
Has thanked: 16940 times
Been thanked: 30183 times
I think my bin is having an affair it went missing for 24 hours and has reappeared.I thought,as has happened before that it had been eaten by the bin lorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
The FT admits it: Corbyn is coming
Posted on January 5 2018

The FT is running a most amusing feature today:
Richard Murphy

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018 ... is-coming/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
]It is also a sign of the times that the relevant questions are being asked by Yvette Cooper, and not by any of Labour's crack frontbench justice team.[

An exceptionally lame "point". Even from you ;)



Why so?


Because it would be normal - or at least far from unknown - for somebody in Cooper's position to lead on this?

Quite likely she has agreed this approach with the leadership.


I think that very unlikely indeed. I doubt Cooper has any contact with Corbyn et al.

Corbyn is still in Mexico.

No doubt we'll hear from Burgon in due course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Further important background info

https://rightsinfo.org/appeal-black-cab ... ffects-us/

I confess I'd forgotten this was the same case.

Maybe there was lack of evidence because the Met cocked up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:28 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
Just continued pathetic ranting against Labour - snide comments in every post


Yvette Cooper is the Select Committee Chairwoman and is perfectly capable of making the points necessary - there is no need for any comments from either front bench on a specific case until there is any need to. It is actually quite refreshing that there seems to be little inclination to make party political points on this by both sides

Why don't you go and rant about this with your fellow 'legal experts' rather than coming on here and annoying us with your useless posts - you have very little interesting or illuminating to say on the matter as far as I can see

The parole board has made its decision - these are the ones who have been appointed to do so - if they can give us more information on why they did this, or what the criteria they generally use, then that would be useful but the indications are they are not allowed to discuss individual cases

Perhaps some lessons for more transparency of guidelines and decisions but that is not going tobe done today I don't think


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Further important background info

https://rightsinfo.org/appeal-black-cab ... ffects-us/

I confess I'd forgotten this was the same case.

Maybe there was lack of evidence because the Met cocked up?


so why didn't you wait until more information became available before trying to insinuate that Starnmer was the one to have questions to answer? When he probably cannot answer them anyway as he is not DPP any longer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
To be fair to Burgon, he is now saying on twitter that we need disclosure of parole board reasons

https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
I know he is the wrong person to say it, but this is good

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ton ... 40286.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Further important background info

https://rightsinfo.org/appeal-black-cab ... ffects-us/

I confess I'd forgotten this was the same case.

Maybe there was lack of evidence because the Met cocked up?


Thanks for the link. Throws a bit more light on the issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
To be fair to Burgon, he is now saying on twitter that we need disclosure of parole board reasons

https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon


I used to work in this area, albeit in 1999. There were reasons to refuse, not reasons to accept. Plus this is private to the offender.

So non starter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 5987
Has thanked: 2064 times
Been thanked: 9888 times
Hi All

Just a reminder of the "Please Read" on the Daily Politics home page.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1480

Thanks :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
To be fair to Burgon, he is now saying on twitter that we need disclosure of parole board reasons

https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon


I used to work in this area, albeit in 1999. There were reasons to refuse, not reasons to accept. Plus this is private to the offender.

So non starter.



I assume Burgon is calling for the rules to be changed, see also the statement from the parole board I linked to above.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Julie Bindel, righteously furious

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-released

She states, but without any links, that the Starmer decision was a "not in the public interest" one, which is the key question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20525
Has thanked: 16940 times
Been thanked: 30183 times
Including the Russian ? For clarification.
Seriously,point 2 I took to mean discretion/debatable as to preferred "tactic".I am barred from direct two way enagement?,I have no axe to grind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 5987
Has thanked: 2064 times
Been thanked: 9888 times
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2 ... s-tell-may

ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:18 pm
Posts: 7197
Has thanked: 4388 times
Been thanked: 16692 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/05/ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may

ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may


It occurred to me that if a 14 year old pupil at one of Toby's schools came out with the remarks that he made on Twitter, I suspect he wouldn't have lasted very long - 'no excuses' behaviour etc.

Quite why a 40+ year old is defended by people as merely having a 'caustic wit' is baffling. No work environment these days would let anyone get away with crude and sexist comments like those and rightly so.

_________________
FTN's supplier of tedious, pedantic education policy waffle; and Pedant-in-Chief generally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 5987
Has thanked: 2064 times
Been thanked: 9888 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/05/ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may

ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may


It occurred to me that if a 14 year old pupil at one of Toby's schools came out with the remarks that he made on Twitter, I suspect he wouldn't have lasted very long - 'no excuses' behaviour etc.

Quite why a 40+ year old is defended by people as merely having a 'caustic wit' is baffling. No work environment these days would let anyone get away with crude and sexist comments like those and rightly so.

As I have commented elsewhere, Johnson has a point!

If you can call black people piccaninnies with watermelon smiles and become Foreign Secretary......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20525
Has thanked: 16940 times
Been thanked: 30183 times
Who has pinched PF's "night,night" and "Good Morfternoon".If they haven't returned by 4pm it is detention for all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:20 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
RogerOThornhill wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/05/ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may

ditch-toby-young-from-watchdog-board-top-labour-figures-tell-may


It occurred to me that if a 14 year old pupil at one of Toby's schools came out with the remarks that he made on Twitter, I suspect he wouldn't have lasted very long - 'no excuses' behaviour etc.

Quite why a 40+ year old is defended by people as merely having a 'caustic wit' is baffling. No work environment these days would let anyone get away with crude and sexist comments like those and rightly so.


Do you remember Paris Brown, a 17 year old given a youth role by Kent's Police Commissioner?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22083032

Deeply unpleasant comments made when she was 16. Young was 46 when he went on Twitter, I think.


Last edited by Tubby Isaacs on Fri 05 Jan, 2018 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
To be fair to Burgon, he is now saying on twitter that we need disclosure of parole board reasons

https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon


I used to work in this area, albeit in 1999. There were reasons to refuse, not reasons to accept. Plus this is private to the offender.

So non starter.



I assume Burgon is calling for the rules to be changed, see also the statement from the parole board I linked to above.


The system shouldn't be changed. The point of the reasons being private is that it helps the offender address them and go straight after release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Julie Bindel, righteously furious

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-released

She states, but without any links, that the Starmer decision was a "not in the public interest" one, which is the key question.


Quote:
Some women who are convicted of making false allegations of rape are treated more harshly than serial rapists. Take the case of Jemma Beale, who claimed she had been sexually assaulted by a number of men over a period of three years. Last year Beale was jailed for 10 years.


She does know that you don't serve all the sentence in jail, right?

Even if she does absolutely nothing to address her offending, she'd come out in less than 7 years. And I assume Worboys is on licence for life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
Burgon is a populist lightweight.

If the details of probation decisions need to be made public, that'll have newspapers stirring shit a hundred times a week. The parole board will just get far so cautious that the prison population rockets. Not to mention that it's personal to the offender, and I can't believe a court would say different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Tubby Isaacs wrote:


The system shouldn't be changed. The point of the reasons being private is that it helps the offender address them and go straight after release.


Does that apply where the decision is to release? I'm minded to accept the parole board chair's view, but am open to persuasion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], frog222, refitman and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group