Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HelenaExMachina

UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Its intention as to the end result that matters here rather than what action you intend. Shooting a gun randomly into a crowd though I think you would have a hard time showing you lacked intent to kill or cause GBH. 

As RBPL says though you'd still be guilty of manslaughter if you lacked the intent. It's not particularly weird imo. What is the Canadian approach? I assumed it was the same actually

So manslaughter in Canada is kind of weird. The only thing that is actually listed for the reduction of murder to manslaughter is "Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation." Which I think is a very stupid idea. Outside of that it's just "Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter." I assume this is to allow wiggle room for the Crown.

In any event murder in Canada:

Quote

Culpable homicide is murder

  • (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

    • (i) means to cause his death, or

    • (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

  • (b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

  • (c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

C is where we differ I believe, though it's been a while since my one legal course, and I had forgotten about the "unlawful object" bit so my interpretation of Canadian law may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since we're on page 16, wondering what should the next avatar of this thread be called?

 

Genocidal Tory Fan Boys

Gerrymandering Tax Avoiding Brexiteers

Who is British anyway? (Please Note: Answers involving Morris dancing are deemed puerile and will not be published)

Can we be pretend to be Greenland ? (He won't know the difference, will he ?)

Priti Patel is going to get you! And you! And you! All of yerrrr!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So manslaughter in Canada is kind of weird. The only thing that is actually listed for the reduction of murder to manslaughter is "Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation." Which I think is a very stupid idea. Outside of that it's just "Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter." I assume this is to allow wiggle room for the Crown.

In any event murder in Canada:

C is where we differ I believe, though it's been a while since my one legal course, and I had forgotten about the "unlawful object" bit so my interpretation of Canadian law may be wrong.

Your first part sounds like our Loss of Control defence, which would reduce a murder charge to one of Voluntary Manslaughter.

C is what we would call unlawful act/constructive manslaughter. 

 

Edit: ah, maybe worth pointing out Manslaughter has different facets here too.

i’m impressed how much criminal law my brain has managed to cling on to :P 

Edited by HelenaExMachina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Your first part sounds like our Loss of Control defence, which would reduce a murder charge to one of Voluntary Manslaughter.

C is what we would call unlawful act/constructive manslaughter. 

 

Edit: ah, maybe worth pointing out Manslaughter has different facets here too.

i’m impressed how much criminal law my brain has managed to cling on to :P 

So am I, it's been almost a decade since I've done any legal courses, and it was a high school elective not like, university level stuff.

In any event the actual specifics of it don't really matter. I was mostly objecting to the idea that the deaths of 90% of everyone in the Americas can be considered not genocide on a technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So am I, it's been almost a decade since I've done any legal courses, and it was a high school elective not like, university level stuff.

In any event the actual specifics of it don't really matter. I was mostly objecting to the idea that the deaths of 90% of everyone in the Americas can be considered not genocide on a technicality.

Typo? 

I see what you mean. But as i said in the first post, mass shooters is likely still murder because you would struggle to disprove they intended death and/or gbh

 

eta; sorry i think i ,misread your post. Scrilling back

Edited by HelenaExMachina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Boris Johnson’s letter to the EU, mainly detailing why the WA is so bad and why we need to move on from it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-donald-tusk-19-august-2019

Short summary. We don't want it. We are committed to the GFA and no hard border, and have no solution for the problem [at least he recognizes the repoblem as such], that is the Irish border. However, we would like to have the non-existent solution to replace the backstop, because we don't like it. Surely you can see the reason behind this balanced approach, so we can [pretend to] talk about our non-solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Let's assume Corbyn steps in, asks for an extension and calls a GE. Then what? This is the bit that really puzzles me with this scenario. Chances are you get back with another hung parliament. Tories losing some seats to their right to Frogface's NUKIP, and Labour losing seats to the remain Alliance (LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, and presumably the SNP). Personally, I think with the FPTP system in the UK this actually might tilt the scales in favour of no-deal. Then Britain will have emulated the US electorally. A majority of the electorate being pro-Remain by now, being presented with no-deal, similar to Twitler winning the US Presidential election, while losing the popular vote. The (presumably) Tory lead goverment, would need to form a coalition with the DUP and Frogface. If you felt like mocking May's election with her strong and stable goverment catchphrase, then you really have seen nothing yet. On the other hand, if we get again a return of a majority of remain MPs, we are roughly in the same spot we are now. Corbyn proclaiming to be the only real person to lead such a goverment, while the LibDems and SNP do not particularly like him. The SNP is willing to cooperate with him for now to stop No-Deal, but they are hardly in it for their love for Corbyn.

Having that said, I don't think neither side is looking too good with that circus. Let's face it, both sides are playing a game of chicken with no-deal. Both sides calculating that the other will given in to avoid no-deal. Swinson said, even with all the LibDems voting for Corbyn, he would still lack votes to get elected, as in CHUK (without Chuka, or the Soubry bunch) will not vote for him, Grieve and the other Tory rebells will not vote for him, and that's not even accounting for the few brain dead Labour Leavers like the Red Kipper Kate Hoey not voting for Corbyn, because they really want Brexit to happen. FWIW, I think this game of chicken has a high probability to end with a head-on colission. For Corbyn Brexit is that inconvenience that stops him from talking about austerity, and he is at best indifferent to the whole thing, so will he blink? No, idea. On the other side we have the group of MPs who flat out despise Corbyn for one reason or another and are not willing to vote him in, will they be willing to hold their noses and vote for him? Again, no idea. Also, I have no idea how many Long-Baileys (which is Labour's answer to McVey in terms of stupid, I believe) there are, but I hope there are not enough to insist that Corbyn is bigger than Jesus, or Brexit. FWIW, I believe caretaker PM should be whoever commands a majority in parliament. I don't really care whether that's Corbyn, Clarke, Harman, or Caroline Lucas for all I care. Corbyn can stomp with his feet all day long and insist he is heading the biggest opposition party, it doesn't matter if he can't command a majority in the HoC. This would be a temporary goverment of unity, and Corbyn is obviously not a unifying figure.

On an unrelated note, I see people are still taking time off from their well paid goverment position at the Mail to engage into troll feeding.

The main argument against allowing a no-deal is that it is claimed by everyone who doesn't want a no-deal that this is not what people voted for in the referendum. They were sold a bill of goods with the false campaigning of the Brexiteers. Well, in a GE where Brexit is THE issue and everyone knows no-deal is absolutely on the cards, if the hard Brexit people win a majority it will almost certainly mean that this is what the people are willing to accept. FPTP is not an ideal way of measuring the national mood, but I would expect that if the general populous really is afraid of no-deal then the group of parties guaranteeing to end any possibility of no-deal (or guaranteeing to have a people's vote) should get a big enough swing to secure a majority.

Personally I think a people's vote should precede any GE, since that is the unfiltered will of the people. But a GE first isn't a total outrage, especially when there is a clear choice in front of the country.

Realistically, who can command a majority in Parliament to become PM after the VONC? Are you potentially looking at a Conservative remainer / soft Brexiter coming out of left field (from outside the rebel Cons and thus a party loyalist) suddenly grabbing a large hunk of the Tories and getting a majority that way, thus largely bypassing Labour? Whatever the majority is if it's not the Labour Leader it will almost certainly have to be made up with only a small number of Labour MPs. So securing a majority without a whole bunch of Tories coming over will be pretty much impossible.

I can only see the Labor nut jobs being able to kill a VONC, not being able to block a caretaker govt. If the VONC passes, those MPs won't be the ones to determine whether a caretaker govt can be formed. Arguably they will probably be more likely to back Corbyn, who at least is recognised as Brexit-curious and is their leader. A successful VONC does not annoint a PM, and the caretaker govt doesn't have to be made up of the parties that voted in favour of the motion. The reality will really hit when the VONC passes and there is only 2 weeks to avert disaster and not 2 months. That will focus the minds of everyone concerned. Until there's an actual successful VONC everything is just theoretical bluster and posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I see Boris is using the traditional British negotiating tactic of repeating himself slowly and loudly until those bloody foreigners understand him.

He is currently being unsuccessful as he isn't waving his arms around enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

He is currently being unsuccessful as he isn't waving his arms around enough.

Needs some lessons from General Melchett on the correct and appropriate use of the swagger stick

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The main argument against allowing a no-deal is that it is claimed by everyone who doesn't want a no-deal that this is not what people voted for in the referendum. They were sold a bill of goods with the false campaigning of the Brexiteers. Well, in a GE where Brexit is THE issue and everyone knows no-deal is absolutely on the cards, if the hard Brexit people win a majority it will almost certainly mean that this is what the people are willing to accept. FPTP is not an ideal way of measuring the national mood, but I would expect that if the general populous really is afraid of no-deal then the group of parties guaranteeing to end any possibility of no-deal (or guaranteeing to have a people's vote) should get a big enough swing to secure a majority. 

That is attributing rationality to British politics, that seems to have left some time ago.

We have the Tories lieing to themselves and the electorate about the consequences of no-deal. As in it will all be fine. Then we have Labour who woud presumably end up campaigning on some sort of Corbyn Brexit. As in, he would get that sweetheart deal the Tories couldn't, because. I mean, the latest from Comedy Central, aka Corbyn's POlitburo: Labour cold very well stay neutral during a second Brexit referendum. Brexit is the biggest political issue and challenge for the UK for the last 50 years or so. And the wannabe Caretaker PM wants to continue with his handwringing and wonders why there are so many remainers that don't consider him trustworthy. So, if he wants to stay neutral on Brexit during a second referendum, how do you position yourself during a GE campaign on Brexit? And no, this isn't just a rhethorical quesiton, as I've no idea how that is gonna work. What your position on BRexit? We want to end the dangerous ideologically driven austerity policy, that has harmed this country under the Tory goverment. Yeah, but what's your position on Brexit? We will have another referendum. What's your position? There'll be another referendum. Yeah, but what's your preferred outcome? We will have another referendum to have the British people have their voices heard. Continue ad nauseam,

Now then the problem with FPTP is that the Remain vote is far more fractured than the leave vote, and then as mentioend above, we also have the whatever party, aka what used to be the Labour party. While the Leave vote is pretty consolidated around the two parties on the right and far right. I said two parties, as I think oldkip is pretty dead, and it's really just the Tories and NUKIP.

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Personally I think a people's vote should precede any GE, since that is the unfiltered will of the people. But a GE first isn't a total outrage, especially when there is a clear choice in front of the country. 

No, it's not a total outrage, but I don't think it solves anything. I think we'd end up roughly where we are now.

 

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Realistically, who can command a majority in Parliament to become PM after the VONC? Are you potentially looking at a Conservative remainer / soft Brexiter coming out of left field (from outside the rebel Cons and thus a party loyalist) suddenly grabbing a large hunk of the Tories and getting a majority that way, thus largely bypassing Labour? Whatever the majority is if it's not the Labour Leader it will almost certainly have to be made up with only a small number of Labour MPs. So securing a majority without a whole bunch of Tories coming over will be pretty much impossible.

No, like I said, I think Clarke and Harman or whoever could command majority, if Corbyn decided it's not about him becoming PM. I ahve very little hope for him to stop this farcial game of chicken he is right now playing with parliament. I mean, right now, he'd need all the remain MPs to vote for him, while he continues with his constructive indifference approach towards Brexit itself.

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I can only see the Labor nut jobs being able to kill a VONC, not being able to block a caretaker govt. If the VONC passes, those MPs won't be the ones to determine whether a caretaker govt can be formed. Arguably they will probably be more likely to back Corbyn, who at least is recognised as Brexit-curious and is their leader. A successful VONC does not annoint a PM, and the caretaker govt doesn't have to be made up of the parties that voted in favour of the motion. The reality will really hit when the VONC passes and there is only 2 weeks to avert disaster and not 2 months. That will focus the minds of everyone concerned. Until there's an actual successful VONC everything is just theoretical bluster and posturing.

Again, Corbyn needs the votes from across the house to get a tiny majority. And he is not likely to get them. That's why he has resorted tot his political game of chicken with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Again, Corbyn needs the votes from across the house to get a tiny majority. And he is not likely to get them. That's why he has resorted tot his political game of chicken with them.

I agree with this.  But I wonder if we are not putting the cart before the horse. 

It is likely the UK government will try to time any negotiations with the EU to obstruct action by Parliament in early September.  This is the real import of the timing of the letter to Tusk ( its contents are boilerplate). 

It's already being recognized that any negotiations are likely to be a sham - but they serve the twin purpose of demonstrating a good faith attempt (for those inclined to trust Boris or just punt difficult decisions as much as possible) and running out the clock.  The greater the delay, the more justification Boris has to make his private pleas to Tory MPs to not destroy the Tory party, waste the enormous sums being spent on no-deal preparation and force him to go to the country. 

Corbyn's determination to always do the wrong thing at the wrong moment is the gift that keeps on giving.  

 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I agree with this.  But I wonder if we are not putting the cart before the horse. 

It is likely the UK government will try to time any negotiations with the EU to obstruct action by Parliament in early September.  This is the real import of the timing of the letter to Tusk ( its contents are boilerplate). 

It's already being recognized that any negotiations are likely to be a sham - but they serve the twin purpose of demonstrating a good faith attempt (for those inclined to trust Boris or just punt difficult decisions as much as possible) and running out the clock.  The greater the delay, the more justification Boris has to make his private pleas to Tory MPs to not destroy the Tory party, waste the enormous sums being spent on no-deal preparation and force him to go to the country. 

Corbyn's determination to always do the wrong thing at the wrong moment is the gift that keeps on giving.  

 

Tusk knows this of course - which is why he replied to that letter with a straight bat.

I think it likely, but there's no guarantee that the EU will reopen negotiations if Theresa's red line are withdrawn. There's no possibility whatsoever that they'll be reopened by Johnson adding red lines of his own on top of the existing ones.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Tusk knows this of course - which is why he replied to that letter with a straight bat.

I think it likely, but there's no guarantee that the EU will reopen negotiations if Theresa's red line are withdrawn. There's no possibility whatsoever that they'll be reopened by Johnson adding red lines of his own on top of the existing ones.

You don't think there will be negotiations in which each party agrees not to insist on preconditions? I tend to think they will go through the motions because both UK/EU have a vested interest in showing they have done everything possible to reach a deal before the cliff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I think it likely, but there's no guarantee that the EU will reopen negotiations if Theresa's red line are withdrawn.

I don't think so. The WA is what it is, and it will stay this way. It took them years to hammer this one out. The The red lines will get interesting again during the next phase of negotiations, which deals with the questions where are we gonna end up wrt to the EU-UK relationship. If the the silly red lines drop (if it's one by one again, it will take longer), you might end up with some sort of Norway-like deal (I'll leave out the silly +/- thing), or EU membership lite if you will. That won't really remove the Irish sea check, but might take out some of the toxicity.  But the Brexiter's howling about it being worse than membership, and the UK ending up living by the rules made by the EU will stay (to whcih the obvious reply is d'uh). And remainers will be equically unhappy, because it's not as good membership (again d'uh). So that begs the question, what is the desired outcome of new negotiations, as any deal will be worse than membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I don't think so. The WA is what it is, and it will stay this way. It took them years to hammer this one out. The The red lines will get interesting again during the next phase of negotiations, which deals with the questions where are we gonna end up wrt to the EU-UK relationship. If the the silly red lines drop (if it's one by one again, it will take longer), you might end up with some sort of Norway-like deal (I'll leave out the silly +/- thing), or EU membership lite if you will. That won't really remove the Irish sea check, but might take out some of the toxicity.  But the Brexiter's howling about it being worse than membership, and the UK ending up living by the rules made by the EU will stay (to whcih the obvious reply is d'uh). And remainers will be equically unhappy, because it's not as good membership (again d'uh). So that begs the question, what is the desired outcome of new negotiations, as any deal will be worse than membership.

Much of the commentary is pointing out that the letter to Tusk made a point of disclaiming regulatory alignment with the EU.  Boris has spoken previously about not being a "vassal state" or "rule-taker" so that is clearly his intent.  The problem is he would also like free access to the EU market, which the EU will not grant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×