UK politics - not inspiring but effective

[BigFatCoward]

41 minutes ago, karaddin said:

 

All of that said, I'm not saying this law is illegitimate or wrong. I'd view jail time as absurd, but if found guilty I assume there would be a fine and that's the price of being stupid when drunk. 

 

She's going to lose a hell of a lot of sponsorships if she'd found guilty i'd imagine, if she hasn't already. 

 

 

Edited March 6 by BigFatCoward

[Derfel Cadarn]

55 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Yeah, it was really more of a "this is a demonstration of things not being good" than anything I thought was particularly revelatory.

Even police budgets have been pretty cut to the bone right? It's a one year delay for the court case, but just taking a year to decide whether to even push ahead with charges seems really slow and I would have thought not wholly dependent on the courts?

For a ‘simple’ case, the cops will have sent a case to the CPS within days (I’d imagine). It’s not like they sat on it for months, or that it required lots of investigation. Unless of course they had to retrieve CCTV or body-worn footage, but even that should be fairly quick.

The delay (I assume) will be at the XOS end, waiting for the case to reach whoever reviewed and made the final call.

[mormont]

I think it is actually a 'reasonable person' standard in these cases, and while they can be complicated, judges do have published guidance and pre-established case law to guide them. Most things judges deal with are complicated, one way or the other.

Anyway, passing aside the Hunt budget (steal all Labour's fundraising ideas and spend the cash on tax cuts - and people wonder why opposition parties don't set out their policies in detail before an election?), the Tories are running into the inevitable issues with trying to be the most free speech and also the most hype against 'extremism'.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/05/senior-tories-criticise-no-10-plans-to-broaden-extremism-definition
 

Quote

Downing Street is facing a backlash from Conservative MPs and peers over moves to create a broader of definition of extremism in response to what Rishi Sunak describes as the threat of “mob rule”.

Michael Gove, the communities secretary, is expected to unveil plans next week that would allow the government, universities and local authorities to cut off links to groups identified as “extremist”.

Miriam Cates is obviously someone with whom I have quite a serious difference of views on most topics, but she at least sees the problem:
 

Quote

The rightwing Tory MP Miriam Cates and Lord Frost, the high-profile rightwing peer, are among those who have expressed opposition amid concerns that the move could have an inadvertent impact on anti-abortion groups, advocates for socially conservative causes and those opposed to transgender rights.

“Any attempt to define extremism or fundamental British values is very risky because one person’s extremism is another person’s sincerely held and lawful belief,” Cates told the Guardian.

“An obvious is example is where I regularly call trans rights activists extremists for believing a man can be a woman just because he says he is, and that this gives him the right to enter women-only spaces, but equally I am called an extremist for believing there are only two biological sexes and that you can’t change sex.”

“These are debates that we should be able to have lawfully in society. We should be able to call each other extremists, but it also means those views should not be banned,” said the MP, one of the leaders of the New Conservatives grouping of Tory MPs.

But the Tories need something to campaign on, so they're going to try to ride these two horses at once. And civic groups will be asked, again, to do two contradictory things - uphold the right to free speech, but also not engage with anyone who says perfectly legal things that the government has decided are objectionable. Under threat of punishment for being unable to square that circle. It's madness.

Edited March 6 by mormont

[kissdbyfire]

I for one felt immense relief upon hearing Hunt today. I mean, my dear spouse keeps complaining about most everything, so it was good to be able to bring him the good news that not only everything is hunky-dory but it’s going to get even better! The UK will be the next Silicon Valley, and so much more! 
 

[insert heavy sarcasm emoji]

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

For a ‘simple’ case, the cops will have sent a case to the CPS within days (I’d imagine). It’s not like they sat on it for months, or that it required lots of investigation. Unless of course they had to retrieve CCTV or body-worn footage, but even that should be fairly quick.

 

BWV is instantly viewable, and if she is clearly caught calling her a 'stupid white bitch' then she is absolutely screwed, there is no way she can plead lack of intent.  It doesn't look good that she was also clearly pissed and had just thrown up in a taxi. 

the policing side of this will have been quick, CPS always shit their pants when famous people are involved though and triple check everything. 

[Maltaran]

Underfunding of the courts and trial delays are a long term ongoing issue, as evidenced by this from today

Judges pledge to surge rape cases to cut backlogs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68483956

[karaddin]

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

the policing side of this will have been quick, CPS always shit their pants when famous people are involved though and triple check everything. 

Bolded is what I would have thought and why I posted, the second bit does make sense though if this isn't actually indicative of the standard turn around on something like this.

The year wait for the court booking still isn't good, but that's a pretty straightforward explanation of the courts being overburdened/insufficiently resourced.

10 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

She's going to lose a hell of a lot of sponsorships if she'd found guilty i'd imagine, if she hasn't already. 

That's not even a question of the law though. I don't find what she said offensive, with the disclaimer that her general tone and demeanor could dramatically change how I'd feel about it, but that's the precarious nature of making most of your income from sponsorships. If you do something the sponsors don't like you'll lose them.

 

9 hours ago, mormont said:

I think it is actually a 'reasonable person' standard in these cases, and while they can be complicated, judges do have published guidance and pre-established case law to guide them. Most things judges deal with are complicated, one way or the other.

The only reason I gave any weight to what I'd read on Reddit about it requiring intent was that the reporting indicated that a lack of intent was the defence her lawyers were going with, that seems a poor angle if that's not even a component of the charge.

[The Anti-Targ]

I thought intent was always part of any criminal prosecution. Did you intend to murder the person, or was it an accident? Depending on the answer the consequences are quite different.

Only for the very lowest level of offending with fines as the maximum penalty can intent be disgregarded. You have a piece of fruit in your bag when you arrive in New Zealand you WILL pay a $400 fine whether you intended that piece of fruit to be there or not. 

Being vomitously drunk is often offered as a mitigation. I personally was not prepared to give Mel Gibson a pass because he went on a drunken anti-Semitic rant several years ago, so I'm not well disposed to people using the "but I was drunk and didn't know what I was saying" defence. In vino veritas and all that.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I thought intent was always part of any criminal prosecution. Did you intend to murder the person, or was it an accident? Depending on the answer the consequences are quite different.

Only for the very lowest level of offending with fines as the maximum penalty can intent be disgregarded. You have a piece of fruit in your bag when you arrive in New Zealand you WILL pay a $400 fine whether you intended that piece of fruit to be there or not. 

Being vomitously drunk is often offered as a mitigation. I personally was not prepared to give Mel Gibson a pass because he went on a drunken anti-Semitic rant several years ago, so I'm not well disposed to people using the "but I was drunk and didn't know what I was saying" defence. In vino veritas and all that.

I don't think intent is part of the Australian racial discrimination act, just whether a reasonable person would view the speech as harassing/vilifying/intimidating groups xyz or something along those lines. Perhaps I'm misremembering as its quite a few years ago that I remember it being discussed and definitely not a lawyer, it could have been "whether a reasonable person would believe the intent was to <list of stuff>".

I don't think "I was drunk" is the defense being used with respect to intent here though, I agree its a not a good one.

[Which Tyler]

TBH, (I'm no lawyer), I'm not sure how much intent CAN apply to things like harassment, hate, X-ism etc.

The point is how it's perceived by others, because that's the harm that's being done.

 

Plenty of racists don't see themselves as being racist - just telling their truth. That doesn't get them off the hook for being racist - or sexist, or homophobic or... There is a list of protected characteristics where that makes it a hate crime, whether you think it is or not.
We're not talking libel where "but I honestly believe" is a good enough excuse.

[BigFatCoward]

6 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

There is a list of protected characteristics where that makes it a hate crime, whether you think it is or not.

The Pneumonic for racially aggravatèd is CORN (colour, origin, race, nationality) so this is definitely racially aggravated. 

[Which Tyler]

3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The Pneumonic for racially aggravatèd is CORN (colour, origin, race, nationality) so this is definitely racially aggravated. 

Shoulda used "phototype" instead of "colour"

[BigFatCoward]

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Shoulda used "phototype" instead of "colour"

The way we were taught to remember indecent exposure is WOLO Dickie Bird (wilfully openly lewdly obscenely) show your dick to a bird. 

I'm guessing they don't teach that anymore. 

[maarsen]

10 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

The Pneumonic for racially aggravatèd is CORN (colour, origin, race, nationality) so this is definitely racially aggravated. 

Pneumonic? Did you mean Mnemonic?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Pneumonic? Did you mean Mnemonic?

Nah, just scream it for three minutes at the top of your lungs and its both.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nah, just scream it for three minutes at the top of your lungs and its both.

A big lump with knobs. It has the juice.

 

Edited March 7 by The Anti-Targ

[BigFatCoward]

12 hours ago, maarsen said:

Pneumonic? Did you mean Mnemonic?

its funny how stuff seeps into your brain, when i was at training school there was a lad in our class that couldn't pronounce it for love or money, it was more pewmonic, and ever since i've always subconsciously pronounced it with a p at the start. 

[BigFatCoward]

May to stand down, even though she was vile and incompetent, she was still relatively normal compared to the current lot. 

[Liffguard]

23 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

May to stand down, even though she was vile and incompetent, she was still relatively normal compared to the current lot. 

Back in 2016, PJ O'Rourke said about Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump, "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters." I guess that's kind of how I feel about May. In fact, I've taken it to be a somewhat useful rubric for assessing how much and in what ways I disagree with someone. Some people I can't even disagree with as such, because we exist in effectively totally different reality spheres. There's definitely a large contingent of the current Tories who fall into that category.

[Heartofice]

May has seemed far better since being deposed as Prime Minister then she ever did in office. It might be that she is able to look sensible in contrast to the people in power, and that by shaking her head at everything and making obvious points and complaining about the shit show in front of her she is able to restore some of her reputation.

She was also completely and entirely terrible as a leader. Most of that is on her, but I'm starting to suspect the set of incentives attached to the role of Prime Minister, and in particular leader of the Tories, means that anyone who takes the job will have to behave in a bizarre way that is counter to everything they believe. 

Sunak before he was Prime Minister, whilst not exactly mindblowing, at least gave the the air of sensible purse holder who held his nose at all the craziness on the right of the party. However he has had to embrace much of that to stay in power, I guess is being advised badly. That isn't a good sign, and suggests anyone who gets that job is going to act in the exact same way.

Edited March 8 by Heartofice