Brexit!

[HappyHamza]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

But you need a fully functioning criminal justice system too (unless we are going down the route of summary justice which this Home Secretary might well think is an excellent idea) and that is not something we’ve had for many a year

 

See the recent article by the Secret Barrister in the Guardian (your favourite comic) - sorry, for some reason I can’t post the link

 

Edit: Here it is

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/tories-tough-talk-crime-shameless-cynical-justice?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

 

 

 

Like most things the middle way would be the best way. 

 

The line the tories are taking about the length of sentencing around particular crimes is a false narrative.  What they are proposing around not guaranteeing early release is already the law.

 

Despite their blatant populist lies in that area, however, I do think there are specific offences - such as carrying a knife - where the deterrent needs to be increased hugely.

 

On the other side the right wing needs to be forced to take criminal justice research seriously and stop shouting populist easy answers, instead focusing on rehabilitation and restorative justice for the majority of minor offences. The evidence is that it is more successful than jail terms (as well as being considerably cheaper). 

[Salisbury Fox]

8 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

Like most things the middle way would be the best way. 

 

The line the tories are taking about the length of sentencing around particular crimes is a false narrative.  What they are proposing around not guaranteeing early release is already the law.

 

Despite their blatant populist lies in that area, however, I do think there are specific offences - such as carrying a knife - where the deterrent needs to be increased hugely.

 

On the other side the right wing needs to be forced to take criminal justice research seriously and stop shouting populist easy answers, instead focusing on rehabilitation and restorative justice for the majority of minor offences. The evidence is that it is more successful than jail terms (as well as being considerably cheaper). 

Whilst rehabilitation is important, so is a victims right to justice which is often forgotten about.  By the way populism is not only the preserve of the right. 

 

oh Jeremy Corbyn oh

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Whilst rehabilitation is important, so is a victims right to justice which is often forgotten about.  By the way populism is not only the preserve of the right. 

 

oh Jeremy Corbyn oh

Well, that's where it all gets runny, doesn't it? Seeing as peoples definition of justice varies from person to person and from case to case.

 

Are we talking restorative, punishment or straight up eye-for-eye vengeance?

[Salisbury Fox]

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, that's where it all gets runny, doesn't it? Seeing as peoples definition of justice varies from person to person and from case to case.

 

Are we talking restorative, punishment or straight up eye-for-eye vengeance?

I think it’s a fine balance but there has to be a fair level of punishment for the public to have confidence in the system.

[Innovindil]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, that's where it all gets runny, doesn't it? Seeing as peoples definition of justice varies from person to person and from case to case.

 

Are we talking restorative, punishment or straight up eye-for-eye vengeance?

So why not just let the victims/next of kin decide? In the end justice is relevant to the victims, how many times do we see "they've not been given long enough" or in that storie's case I posted yesterday, the brother of the victim said he forgave that cop and wished she didn't have to go to jail (iirc?). 

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So why not just let the victims/next of kin decide? In the end justice is relevant to the victims, how many times do we see "they've not been given long enough" or in that storie's case I posted yesterday, the brother of the victim said he forgave that cop and wished she didn't have to go to jail (iirc?). 

Definitely something in this, in serious crimes satisfying the grief of the family is as important as anything else when sentencing imho. 

 

Legal minefield though obviously. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I think it’s a fine balance but there has to be a fair level of punishment for the public to have confidence in the system.

You'll get no disagreement from me on the balance part - sadly however, again, everyone thinks their own view is perfectly balanced, of course. It's all so subjective, and while legal rules are in place that give some objectivity, those rules are still made and enforced by fallible humans.

 

That being said, there's no way around the inconsistencies in that way so I guess the best that can be done is to try to moderate the process with as much accountability as possible. Everyone is answerable to someone else.

 

47 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So why not just let the victims/next of kin decide? In the end justice is relevant to the victims, how many times do we see "they've not been given long enough" or in that storie's case I posted yesterday, the brother of the victim said he forgave that cop and wished she didn't have to go to jail (iirc?). 

 

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely something in this, in serious crimes satisfying the grief of the family is as important as anything else when sentencing imho. 

 

Legal minefield though obviously. 

Because for every case like the one you describe Inno you get one like:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49848384

 

Where the family of the victim were clearly, clearly in the wrong because of their own bias. It is a legal (and a moral) minefield, and for that reason IMO the law and "justice"/sentencing (whatever that means to anyone) should be applied as dispassionately as possible. Of course, as per above you're never going to get perfectly dispassionate decisions, but you can make the process as accountable as possible whereby sentences are precedented, agreed upon and those passing the sentence are answerable to others should it be deemed too harsh/lenient.

 

When it comes to someone having the power to decide someone else's fate, that should never rest in the hands of one authority solely - that's what criminals do when they steal, assault, murder or whatever, they take it upon themselves to assert absolute power over a person or people - and that is what they are held accountable for. That should apply to everyone.

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You'll get no disagreement from me on the balance part - sadly however, again, everyone thinks their own view is perfectly balanced, of course. It's all so subjective, and while legal rules are in place that give some objectivity, those rules are still made and enforced by fallible humans.

 

That being said, there's no way around the inconsistencies in that way so I guess the best that can be done is to try to moderate the process with as much accountability as possible. Everyone is answerable to someone else.

 

 

Because for every case like the one you describe Inno you get one like:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49848384

 

Where the family of the victim were clearly, clearly in the wrong because of their own bias. It is a legal (and a moral) minefield, and for that reason IMO the law and "justice"/sentencing (whatever that means to anyone) should be applied as dispassionately as possible. Of course, as per above you're never going to get perfectly dispassionate decisions, but you can make the process as accountable as possible whereby sentences are precedented, agreed upon and those passing the sentence are answerable to others should it be deemed too harsh/lenient.

 

When it comes to someone having the power to decide someone else's fate, that should never rest in the hands of one authority solely - that's what criminals do when they steal, assault, murder or whatever, they take it upon themselves to assert absolute power over a person or people - and that is what they are held accountable for. That should apply to everyone.

So you take the best of both worlds, when the next of kin is in effect the actual victim, then they decide, if the next of kin, like in your case aren't really victims at all, then the decision falls on the judge. There's a middle ground in this, where real victims are given power, there has to be. 

[Jon the Hat]

21 hours ago, FerrisBueller said:

Absolute nightmare like you say, it's one thing the gov promising it until 2020 but I don't trust them one bit.

Not to mention all these people getting denied settled status for seemingly no good reason.

I'm just praying for some sort of deal now, I need that transition period so I can sort my stuff and leave.

 

The whole process has been anxiety inducing, I just hope it's going to be worth it (it definitely won't)

While I have sympathy for those of you with European other halves, filling in a form is not difficult.  When they start charging £4000 you can start moaning.  I have spent about £12k all in on visas and so on in both directions with my Australian wife.  Suck it up and recognise the free settlement offer for what it is, which is an amazingly good deal in comparison to what the rest of us have paid.  The worst irony is had I been an EU citizen with an Australian wife it would have cost me about 10% of what it had.

 

Also most people complaining are not being denied settled status, they are being asked for evidence.  Not the same thing.

Edited 5 October 2019 by Jon the Hat

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So you take the best of both worlds, when the next of kin is in effect the actual victim, then they decide, if the next of kin, like in your case aren't really victims at all, then the decision falls on the judge. There's a middle ground in this, where real victims are given power, there has to be. 

....how are they not victims at all? They lost their daughter, they just valued their daughter about as much as the family pet so they didn't have much in the way of feelings of victimisation.

 

That being said, I'd like to think like you that there is a middle ground where you can balance established precedent with the victims wishes, I'm just not sure there is a way to implement it well without reducing the whole thing to a subjective farce which is exactly what the legal system shouldn't be. If folks have ideas on that, I'd be happy to hear them.

 

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

While I have sympathy for those of you with European other halves, filling in a form is not difficult.  When they start charging £4000 you can start moaning.  I have spent about £12k all in on visas and so on in both directions with my Australian wife.  Suck it up and recognise the free settlement offer for what it is, which is an amazingly good deal in comparison to what the rest of us have paid.  The worst irony is had I been an EU citizen with an Australian wife it would have cost me about 10% of what it had.

 

Also most people complaining are not being denied settled status, they are being asked for evidence.  Not the same thing.

I'm not sure that arguing that relocating to a different country is harder and more expensive in some cases than others is really a good argument for those "others" to get more difficult, even if they remain less difficult than other examples. Working towards levelling the playing field by making things more difficult for everyone strikes me as a mite harsh.

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

....how are they not victims at all? They lost their daughter, they just valued their daughter about as much as the family pet so they didn't have much in the way of feelings of victimisation.

 

That being said, I'd like to think like you that there is a middle ground where you can balance established precedent with the victims wishes, I'm just not sure there is a way to implement it well without reducing the whole thing to a subjective farce which is exactly what the legal system shouldn't be. If folks have ideas on that, I'd be happy to hear them.

 

I'm not sure that arguing that relocating to a different country is harder and more expensive in some cases than others is really a good argument for those "others" to get more difficult, even if they remain less difficult than other examples. Working towards levelling the playing field by making things more difficult for everyone strikes me as a mite harsh.

My point is that what is on offer is actually not difficult or expensive, so quit moaning and get on with it.

[WigstonWanderer]

23 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

While I have sympathy for those of you with European other halves, filling in a form is not difficult.  When they start charging £4000 you can start moaning.  I have spent about £12k all in on visas and so on in both directions with my Australian wife.  Suck it up and recognise the free settlement offer for what it is, which is an amazingly good deal in comparison to what the rest of us have paid.  The worst irony is had I been an EU citizen with an Australian wife it would have cost me about 10% of what it had.

 

Also most people complaining are not being denied settled status, they are being asked for evidence.  Not the same thing.

I thought you were/are an EU citizen?

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I thought you were/are an EU citizen?

Not in the eyes of the Home office.  One rule for British citizens, another rule for citizens of the EU countries.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

My point is that what is on offer is actually not difficult or expensive, so quit moaning and get on with it.

In your opinion and experience on the matter, and for now.

 

Let's have some qualification here, please.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, leicsmac said:

In your opinion and experience on the matter, and for now.

 

Let's have some qualification here, please.

No, in comparison to being allowed to live and work in another country just about anywhere in the world - it is a fair comparison. Yes it is harder than before, and I sympathise as I said, but it is not difficult.  Easier than qualifying for various benefits I would suggest.

And I if have learned anything it is to take advantage of the now - it will only get harder and more expensive unfortunately.  

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No, in comparison to being allowed to live and work in another country just about anywhere in the world - it is a fair comparison. Yes it is harder than before, and I sympathise as I said, but it is not difficult.  Easier than qualifying for various benefits I would suggest.

And I if have learned anything it is to take advantage of the now - it will only get harder and more expensive unfortunately.  

By comparison, certainly, but again individual capability on such matters comes down to the beholder.

 

I agree with you here on the bolded part and I think that is by far the best reason to challenge all such measures - a race to the "bottom" for harder borders around the world will have consequences that will be overall overwhelmingly negative.

Edited 5 October 2019 by leicsmac

[KingsX]

I don’t venture into this thread; but feel it’s safer to post this here than in the main forum.  Relatively trivial issues within the context of your discussion, yet surely of interest ... these brief excerpts from  https://theathletic.com/1264888/2019/10/04/how-football-is-preparing-for-brexit/

 

Leading clubs have, increasingly, put executives through emergency legal training. “This is not project fear,” says a source close to a top-six club. “This is Project ****ing Reality.” The Premier League is seen as a “soft power asset” and yields £3.3bn into the coffers of the Exchequer each year. Yet there are powers PL clubs are set to lose.

 

The clearest example refers to the ability of English clubs to sign players aged between 16 and 18. There may be ways around this. The owners of clubs such as Leicester and Brighton also own smaller clubs in Belgium, while Manchester City have a network of satellite clubs.

 

For European football, there are a number of very famous footballers with convictions and suspended sentences for tax evasion [to result in statutory entry bans]. UEFA declined to comment, but the expectation is that realpolitik will take over and the Home Office will grant exemptions. Supporters must also plan. British supporters face longer waiting times as they will have to queue separately at airports.

 

The British government has pledged to extend the current rights for EU nationals to move to the UK until December 2020. Individuals would then be able to apply for the European temporary leave to remain scheme that will extend their stay by a further 36 months. This becomes interesting for PL clubs if they wish to sign players on a five-year contract.

 

Privately, clubs are optimistic about striking a favourable deal that would render a long-term contract the smallest calculated risk. They also remain hopeful of agreeing a deal that will not see the FA insist on unreasonable numbers of homegrown talent within a squad.

 

[Guest MattP]

 

[HappyHamza]

On 05/10/2019 at 06:57, Salisbury Fox said:

Whilst rehabilitation is important, so is a victims right to justice which is often forgotten about.  By the way populism is not only the preserve of the right. 

 

oh Jeremy Corbyn oh

 

On 05/10/2019 at 08:08, Innovindil said:

So why not just let the victims/next of kin decide? In the end justice is relevant to the victims, how many times do we see "they've not been given long enough" or in that storie's case I posted yesterday, the brother of the victim said he forgave that cop and wished she didn't have to go to jail (iirc?). 

 

On 05/10/2019 at 08:43, MattP said:

Definitely something in this, in serious crimes satisfying the grief of the family is as important as anything else when sentencing imho. 

 

Legal minefield though obviously. 

My view is that the families should have absolutely no say and I'm not even a fan of victim statements. 

 

The state should be absolutely neutral and hard headed when making decisions on justice.  Emotion should not come into it. 

[StanSP]

 

 

[Milo]

23 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not in the eyes of the Home office.  One rule for British citizens, another rule for citizens of the EU countries.

Blimey. Really?

[Jon the Hat]

8 hours ago, Milo said:

Blimey. Really?

Yes.  If you are German and bring your Non EU spouse to the uk it cost nothing.  For British people it costs thousands, and you need minimum income etc.

[HappyHamza]

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-04/tonnes-of-british-grown-fruit-wasted-over-shortages-of-eu-workers-amid-no-deal-brexit-fears/

 

Huge quantities of British fruit wasted due to lack of EU labour. Where were all the brexiteer young to pick up as we were told would happen?

[HappyHamza]

Australian FORMER Prime Minister on brexit trade deal. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/no-economic-bonanza-julia-gillard-pours-cold-water-on-trade-deal-20191004-p52xun.html

 

"I do worry that people are starting to imagine that a trade deal with Australia is somehow a substitute for being on the doorstep of a market with 500 million people - it's not," she said.

Gillard said the UK was at the back of the queue when it came to Australia's preferred trading partners, of China, Japan, US, Korea, India, New Zealand and Singapore.

"So if a trade deal boosts that a bit, fabulous but it's not going to be a huge economic bonanza," she said.

[Izzy]

14 hours ago, KingsX said:

I don’t venture into this thread; 

 

Wise move