Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB had held Durham NW then Starmer’s task could have been

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB had held Durham NW then Starmer’s task could have been more challenging

At 2:30 this afternoon the first stage of Labour’s election contest will be over. At the moment there are questions over whether Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry will actually get to the magical 22. If they don’t then they are out.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,372
    Were you up for Pidcock? :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    GIN1138 said:

    Were you up for Pidcock? :D

    Glorious moment.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,909
    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Were you up for Pidcock? :D

    Glorious moment.
    Would've been, if the BBC had deigned to show it.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,907
    Endillion said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Were you up for Pidcock? :D

    Glorious moment.
    Would've been, if the BBC had deigned to show it.
    I guess that there were no cameras there because the outcome was seen as a forgone conclusion
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    Endillion said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Were you up for Pidcock? :D

    Glorious moment.
    Would've been, if the BBC had deigned to show it.
    Still happened... or so I am told. :o
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122

    Endillion said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Were you up for Pidcock? :D

    Glorious moment.
    Would've been, if the BBC had deigned to show it.
    I guess that there were no cameras there because the outcome was seen as a forgone conclusion
    They should have listened to their old BBC comrade, Rod Liddle. He was one of the first to start reporting back from the red wall that all was not well at all with Corbyn as leader.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 5,340
    These old Corbyn acolytes are already beginning to feel like yesterday's news. And hooray for that! Brexit, a destabilized UK, the replacement of the Tory Party with the Court of Boris, perhaps even the rise of Donald Trump, can all be traced back to that fateful day when Jezza got the leadership nomination. Nothing remotely good has happened since.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 2,883
    edited January 13
    No offence but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,372

    These old Corbyn acolytes are already beginning to feel like yesterday's news. And hooray for that! Brexit, a destabilized UK, the replacement of the Tory Party with the Court of Boris, perhaps even the rise of Donald Trump, can all be traced back to that fateful day when Jezza got the leadership nomination. Nothing remotely good has happened since.

    So basically the downfall of western democracy is Ed Miliband's fault? :D
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,131

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    What sort of stake are you red on him to ?
  • RobCRobC Posts: 374
    RLB's less than convincing campaign is because she's not up to it. Pidcock might have been and Rayner certainly is but she cashed in her chips by going for the cosier deputy leader berth.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    No offence, but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I think that's the point. Were it not for the good people of NW Durham, the labour party would be well and truly buggered as their membership (who are now for more left leaning than their existing MPs) wouldvote for a highly unsuitable leader.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,372
    Wonder if Meg's "dialed in" yet? I hope HMQ isn't keeping a *REALLY* important person waiting... ;)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    What sort of stake are you red on him to ?
    I'm a pretty minor player really. Sprinkled a few tens of pounds around all the candidates other than outright nutters and, of course, Bernie. Indeed I have been laying him a few days ago.

    I'm still reasonably optimistic that Biden will get there in the end, but clearly there is a chance now of Dem activists giving me a fright.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    Squeaky bum time in rottenborough's finance department? :p
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    RobC said:

    RLB's less than convincing campaign is because she's not up to it. Pidcock might have been and Rayner certainly is but she cashed in her chips by going for the cosier deputy leader berth.

    Rayner is a long game player I reckon.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 2,883
    eek said:

    No offence, but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I think that's the point. Were it not for the good people of NW Durham, the labour party would be well and truly buggered as their membership (who are now for more left leaning than their existing MPs) wouldvote for a highly unsuitable leader.
    No, Mike was saying he was impressed by some of her media performances. My point is i've seen no evidence she would have been any better than RLB, as if somehow RLB isn't the best version of Corbynism on offer.

    It's just a fact that other than say McDonnell Corbynism never really had much in the way of competent torchbearers.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,372

    RobC said:

    RLB's less than convincing campaign is because she's not up to it. Pidcock might have been and Rayner certainly is but she cashed in her chips by going for the cosier deputy leader berth.

    Rayner is a long game player I reckon.
    Yeah, Rayner may have her sights set on the election after next when Labour will probably be highly competitive.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358

    Endillion said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Were you up for Pidcock? :D

    Glorious moment.
    Would've been, if the BBC had deigned to show it.
    I guess that there were no cameras there because the outcome was seen as a forgone conclusion
    They should have listened to their old BBC comrade, Rod Liddle. He was one of the first to start reporting back from the red wall that all was not well at all with Corbyn as leader.
    Twenty years ago I was on holiday in Slovenia. A fellow guest in the hotel was a local TU official from Sunderland and for various reasons my wife and I spent quite a lot of time with him and his wife.He used to talk in a contemptuous/hostile fashion about 'The Lefties' in his organisation and when I watched the slow decline of Labour in the North East I remembered that straw blowing in the wind.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    RobD said:

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    Squeaky bum time in rottenborough's finance department? :p
    :lol:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    edited January 13
    RobD said:

    Glorious moment.

    This is not how I would describe the loss to the Commons of a sparkling political talent. But she'll be back. In fact, a period outside the Westminster bubble for someone who is only 32 years of age may prove a blessing in disguise. She will be able to reflect on things in some depth, read things that she would otherwise have not read, meet people who she otherwise would not have met - etc - and in the process add heft and nuance to her core USP of inspirational communicator. Given that the Cons must be clear favourites for GE 2024, anyone looking for a stupid odds, highly speculative punt on Next PM After Boris Johnson could do a lot worse than Pidcock.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,574

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    The non-Bernie vote is fragmented. As soon as candidates start dropping out Bernie will fall back. He is not especially transfer friendly IMO.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    edited January 13

    No offence but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I rate her. And I have got almost everything right in the last few years.

    EDIT: I have!
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 391
    The Koronation of Sir Keith Starmer is a huge mistake by Labour - then need a proper contest.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    They should have listened to their old BBC comrade, Rod Liddle. He was one of the first to start reporting back from the red wall that all was not well at all with Corbyn as leader.

    He called the 2017 GE right too.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329
    I can't believe one the pb.com tory Algonquin Round Table hasn't dubbed him 'Keir Hardly' yet..
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    TGOHF666 said:

    The Koronation of Sir Keith Starmer is a huge mistake by Labour - then need a proper contest.

    In fairness there is likely to be 3+ candidates in the race and a fairly long campaign period. He's a strong favourite but he isn't being coronated in my mind, plenty of scrutiny/challenge for him.
  • Hilarious listening to LBC with Jess Philips complaining that Boris is inauthentic.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275
    Quincel said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
    From the article:

    Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.

    It looks like they think he still did it. I assume it was a case of means justifying the ends at the time. A very slippery slope.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358
    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    I listened to the podcast. 15 year old boy, bullied into a confession, just to clear the books (or at least that's how it sounded).
    Dreadful, and compounded by the refusal to apologise.
    Procedures at the time were 'very different' because it was subsequently shown that they protected so many lying bastards in the police.
    Wonder how accurate the description of the Met's behaviour 15 years earlier in the Keeler Affair, as shown last night, was!
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    edited January 13
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
  • Quincel said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    The Koronation of Sir Keith Starmer is a huge mistake by Labour - then need a proper contest.

    In fairness there is likely to be 3+ candidates in the race and a fairly long campaign period. He's a strong favourite but he isn't being coronated in my mind, plenty of scrutiny/challenge for him.
    Will there be TV debates? There should be.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689

    eek said:

    No offence, but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I think that's the point. Were it not for the good people of NW Durham, the labour party would be well and truly buggered as their membership (who are now for more left leaning than their existing MPs) wouldvote for a highly unsuitable leader.
    No, Mike was saying he was impressed by some of her media performances. My point is i've seen no evidence she would have been any better than RLB, as if somehow RLB isn't the best version of Corbynism on offer.

    It's just a fact that other than say McDonnell Corbynism never really had much in the way of competent torchbearers.
    Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 37,530
    GIN1138 said:

    Wonder if Meg's "dialed in" yet? I hope HMQ isn't keeping a *REALLY* important person waiting... ;)

    London is 8 hours ahead of Vancouver and the powwow is reportedly starting at 2pm UK time - or 6am Vancouver time.....also Meghan won't be on speakerphone but Harry will update her via WhatsApp.....
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275
    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358
    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    Either Ken Clarke or Chris Grayling were the SoS under the Coalition at the material time. Who were their No2's?
  • kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
    Grim. If the evidence was fitted up, i dont care if he did it and he filmed it on instagram, he still deserves the pay out.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Wonder if Meg's "dialed in" yet? I hope HMQ isn't keeping a *REALLY* important person waiting... ;)

    London is 8 hours ahead of Vancouver and the powwow is reportedly starting at 2pm UK time - or 6am Vancouver time.....also Meghan won't be on speakerphone but Harry will update her via WhatsApp.....
    We speak to our son and daughter in law in Vancouver regularly through WhatsApp. If they are messaging through it, they may as well talk through it, and if costs are an issue, it is free with no time limit
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Telegraph:

    "Andrew Gilligan, the Prime Minister’s transport adviser, has urged him to scrap the London to Birmingham leg of HS2 and concentrate on putting money into northern areas that switched to the Tories in the general election."
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275
    edited January 13
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
    Sorry that wasn't clear (and any lawyers please put me right) but:

    In the criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt, but if a civil case was bought and found against him on the basis of balance of probability there would have been damages. If they believe that (as the police seem to) why pay compensation?

    The flaw to this is:

    a) If he had been tried properly in the first place he probably wouldn't have gone to jail so none of this would have happened

    b) How do we know that he would have lost on the balance of probability?

    My interpretation of the logic behind this may of course all be tosh.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,239
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
    It is a strange provision.

    Despite being a civil claim for compensation from the state, the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person is innocent.

    As other commenters have stated, that effectively means that is insufficient to show that you were fitted up for the crime (i.e. that the evidence against you is flawed).

    The only saving grace is just how difficult to apply a test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is in these circumstances when trying to prove a negative. I can only suggest that the test actually applied is the balance of probabilities, i.e. that the judge is satisfied that it is more likely than not that you did not commit the crime.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    kjh said:

    Quincel said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
    From the article:

    Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.

    It looks like they think he still did it...
    Without presenting a shred of evidence for that view.
    It sounds to me more that they don’t want to look any further into their behaviour at the time, and their own investigation which cleared the officers of any wrongdoing

  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    100% renewable gas? That's very impressive (and completely impossible).
  • I wonder if losing her seat might be a blessing in disguise for Pidcock? At 32, she's got plenty of time to get back into Parliament, and perhaps lead her party. And there is every chance Starmer is the new Kinnock - you'd probably not put the odds of the next Labour leader being next PM at better than about 2/1.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358

    GIN1138 said:

    Wonder if Meg's "dialed in" yet? I hope HMQ isn't keeping a *REALLY* important person waiting... ;)

    London is 8 hours ahead of Vancouver and the powwow is reportedly starting at 2pm UK time - or 6am Vancouver time.....also Meghan won't be on speakerphone but Harry will update her via WhatsApp.....
    We speak to our son and daughter in law in Vancouver regularly through WhatsApp. If they are messaging through it, they may as well talk through it, and if costs are an issue, it is free with no time limit
    WhatsApp, FaceTime......which we find best........or Skype are all good systems. Younger son has a regular Skype (I think) business conversation; Bangkok/Washington/Singapore/UK. Bit difficult time-wise for some but it seems to work.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,131
    Anorak said:

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    The non-Bernie vote is fragmented. As soon as candidates start dropping out Bernie will fall back. He is not especially transfer friendly IMO.
    He is reasonably so from Warren but she'll probably be one of the "final three".

    The one candidate that could help Sanders is Bloomberg, who is somewhere between the top tier and the no hopers in the polling - he could take votes from Biden without delivering proportionately enough delegates (To himself) to make up for the delegates lost from Biden that would otherwise be delivered from the votes Bloomberg has snaffled.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    I expect the plan to ban cars from Birmingham is going to cause no little controversy...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-51088499
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Ed M backs dream ticket - Starmer/Rayner.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    This bit is worrying:

    Some semblance of stability has been brought by marriage, and by compensation Blackburn was awarded after the appeal – though changes to the system made under the 2010 coalition government means it would be unlikely he would be awarded this now.

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
    It is a strange provision.

    Despite being a civil claim for compensation from the state, the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person is innocent.

    As other commenters have stated, that effectively means that is insufficient to show that you were fitted up for the crime (i.e. that the evidence against you is flawed).

    The only saving grace is just how difficult to apply a test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is in these circumstances when trying to prove a negative. I can only suggest that the test actually applied is the balance of probabilities, i.e. that the judge is satisfied that it is more likely than not that you did not commit the crime.
    I badly worded my comment. See my subsequent post.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    eek said:

    100% renewable gas? That's very impressive (and completely impossible).
    Strictly speaking, not impossible. But many years away from being even remotely economic.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358
    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    Quincel said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
    From the article:

    Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.

    It looks like they think he still did it...
    Without presenting a shred of evidence for that view.
    It sounds to me more that they don’t want to look any further into their behaviour at the time, and their own investigation which cleared the officers of any wrongdoing

    Which of course means that a thug who nearly murdered a 12year old is still wandering about free...... unless convicted of something else....... and the chap, now in his 40's who was attacked has to live with no-one being caught.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275
    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    Quincel said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
    From the article:

    Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.

    It looks like they think he still did it...
    Without presenting a shred of evidence for that view.
    It sounds to me more that they don’t want to look any further into their behaviour at the time, and their own investigation which cleared the officers of any wrongdoing

    I have a lot of sympathy and agreement with your suspicion. I have some experience (not with the police but elsewhere in the public sector) and there are plenty of public scandals where this has been the case. I never understand this in the public sector that people want to cover up wrong doings. Things happen, mistakes are made, there are bad apples. Be open, sort it out.

    It seems there was clear evidence the confession was falsified.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Nigelb said:

    I expect the plan to ban cars from Birmingham is going to cause no little controversy...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-51088499

    The actual report talks about restricting through traffic. Includes an option of rerouting A38 away from centre and using the road's tunnels for other transport modes.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    100% renewable gas? That's very impressive (and completely impossible).
    Strictly speaking, not impossible. But many years away from being even remotely economic.
    It's a deal with Octopus, so gas not included.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,574
    Suspect all will make it from that list. Would be a shame to miss out on the political giant that is Burgon in the hustings.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,239
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    There were changes meaning a miscarriage of justice resulting in 25 years of wrongful imprisonment wouldn't lead to compensation? Tell me this isn't so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
    Sorry that wasn't clear (and any lawyers please put me right) but:

    In the criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt, but if a civil case was bought and found against him on the basis of balance of probability there would have been damages. If they believe that (as the police seem to) why pay compensation?

    The flaw to this is:

    a) If he had been tried properly in the first place he probably wouldn't have gone to jail so none of this would have happened

    b) How do we know that he would have lost on the balance of probability?

    My interpretation of the logic behind this may of course all be tosh.
    We now know that the Police would not now succeed beyond reasonable doubt.

    It would be wholly appropriate to treat compensation as a matter for the civil courts and invite each side to explain why, on the balance of probabilities, he did or did not do it - and therefore whether he was 'correctly' (though procedurally wrongly) imprisoned or wrongly (and wrongly) imprisoned.

    However we now ask the victim to demonstrate a higher - and therefore symmetric - standard of innocence. As described in my other post I am not even sure what this test is supposed to *mean*, because the victim is being asked to prove a negative.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    eek said:

    100% renewable gas? That's very impressive (and completely impossible).
    One can only hope that’s it’s more successful than Robin Hood Energy. Their results have been mixed.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275

    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    Quincel said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
    From the article:

    Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.

    It looks like they think he still did it...
    Without presenting a shred of evidence for that view.
    It sounds to me more that they don’t want to look any further into their behaviour at the time, and their own investigation which cleared the officers of any wrongdoing

    Which of course means that a thug who nearly murdered a 12year old is still wandering about free...... unless convicted of something else....... and the chap, now in his 40's who was attacked has to live with no-one being caught.
    It doesn't necessarily mean that. It appears (from the police comments) that the police 'know' he did it and appear to have falsified the evidence to get a conviction.

    We of course should not live in a society where the police can do that, as they did quite a bit around the 70s as we know. if you are dealing with someone's freedom it needs to up to an unbiased jury to decide on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt even if it does mean a villain may go free.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Butler makes 22.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    edited January 13

    I wonder if losing her seat might be a blessing in disguise for Pidcock? At 32, she's got plenty of time to get back into Parliament, and perhaps lead her party. And there is every chance Starmer is the new Kinnock - you'd probably not put the odds of the next Labour leader being next PM at better than about 2/1.

    Yep. This is my way of thinking. She has great promise but is far from the finished article and the article may well end up being better finished through a period spent outside of Westminster.

    If anybody who thinks this is bollox (as of course it probably is) is interested in laying me via Betfair - £10 on Pidcock to be next PM at a price to be agreed - please let do me know.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 232
    kinabalu said:

    No offence but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I rate her. And I have got almost everything right in the last few years.

    EDIT: I have!
    Yeah, I haven't seen much of her, but what I have was positive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    Pidcock might have a fraction more charisma but like Long Bailey she has an absence of gravitas and would just be a continuation of the Corbyn project when the evidence suggests Labour members now want a more centrist leader
  • matt said:

    eek said:

    100% renewable gas? That's very impressive (and completely impossible).
    One can only hope that’s it’s more successful than Robin Hood Energy. Their results have been mixed.
    Ah, i suspected as much, had them trying to tap up our CFO, claiming it is an investment opportunity. I got the clear impression that the 'Robin' would be of the investors capital.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    Absolutely hilarious Twitter thread! :D
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,275

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Quincel said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Py.

    no adifferent”....

    so!
    It is correct. The rules were changed in 2014 to require evidence that you were innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just that the evidence of your guilt was not beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice this often means you need someone else to be convicted for your crime or you will struggle to prove this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/23/britain-refusing-compensate-victims-miscarriage-justice
    Thanks for the link. That is worrying. What happened to the assumption of innocence?
    As a non-lawyer I assume the logic of the decision of the change in law is you are now in the civil arena where you are looking at balance of probability but then what do I know?
    Sorry that wasn't clear (and any lawyers please put me right) but:

    In the criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt, but if a civil case was bought and found against him on the basis of balance of probability there would have been damages. If they believe that (as the police seem to) why pay compensation?

    The flaw to this is:

    a) If he had been tried properly in the first place he probably wouldn't have gone to jail so none of this would have happened

    b) How do we know that he would have lost on the balance of probability?

    My interpretation of the logic behind this may of course all be tosh.
    We now know that the Police would not now succeed beyond reasonable doubt.

    It would be wholly appropriate to treat compensation as a matter for the civil courts and invite each side to explain why, on the balance of probabilities, he did or did not do it - and therefore whether he was 'correctly' (though procedurally wrongly) imprisoned or wrongly (and wrongly) imprisoned.

    However we now ask the victim to demonstrate a higher - and therefore symmetric - standard of innocence. As described in my other post I am not even sure what this test is supposed to *mean*, because the victim is being asked to prove a negative.
    I'm not supporting the proposition I put forward and I don't even know it is correct.

    Another logical argument could be to put him back into the position of a) in my post.That is regardless he would not have been found guilty in the original trial if the evidence had not been falsified and therefore he should be fully compensated as he would not have been imprisoned.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13
    Anorak said:

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    The non-Bernie vote is fragmented. As soon as candidates start dropping out Bernie will fall back. He is not especially transfer friendly IMO.
    Trump only got 45% of the vote in the 2016 Republican primaries but momentum alone after his New Hampshire and Florida wins ensured him the nomination and victory in most states.

    Given his lead in Iowa, California and in some New Hampshire polls Sanders looks the likely nominee at present
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    The fragrant Rosena is/would be utterly lovely.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    edited January 13
    eek said:

    100% renewable gas? That's very impressive (and completely impossible).
    The quote that site gives me undercuts my current suppler Ovo by £73 pcm. I suspect it's not correct.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    HYUFD said:

    Anorak said:

    I'm so red on Bernie. Starting to get really nervous. Tell me this isn't happening.

    The non-Bernie vote is fragmented. As soon as candidates start dropping out Bernie will fall back. He is not especially transfer friendly IMO.
    Trump only got 45% of the vote in the 2016 Republican primaries but momentum alone after his New Hampshire and Florida wins ensured him the nomination and victory in most states.

    Given his lead in Iowa, California and in some New Hampshire polls Sanders looks the likely nominee at present
    Aaaahhhh!!!!!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.

    Too much is made of this IMO. It reminds me a little of the fuss about Andy Murray's "support anybody against England" remark.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 232

    eek said:

    No offence, but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I think that's the point. Were it not for the good people of NW Durham, the labour party would be well and truly buggered as their membership (who are now for more left leaning than their existing MPs) wouldvote for a highly unsuitable leader.
    No, Mike was saying he was impressed by some of her media performances. My point is i've seen no evidence she would have been any better than RLB, as if somehow RLB isn't the best version of Corbynism on offer.

    It's just a fact that other than say McDonnell Corbynism never really had much in the way of competent torchbearers.
    Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.
    Hmm... I didn't know about the "never be friends with a Tory" remark. Just found it in the Independent, and it is bad. The anger is justified, but making it personal to every individual in a group, including ones she's never met, is not. It wouldn't be such a problem if it were caveated with a "but of course I work cross-party on common causes" (see John McDonnell), but it wasn't.

    Well, anyway, she lost her seat. Maybe if and when she returns, she'll have moved on from that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 28,729
    Burgon failing to make it and RLB going backwards would suggest Corbyn’s grip on the party is nowhere near what it was. Of course the people who knew him best never rated him at all and it might be different when they get to the membership.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Indeed. Lying on oath was wrong - a crime, in fact - even 25 years ago, however common it in fact was in police forces. See, for instance, the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, (the Birmingham 6 etc).

    The failures of institutions from the police to the NHS to banks to give proper apologies when they cock things up is yet another thing to make one depressed at the state of our society.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    kicorse said:

    Yeah, I haven't seen much of her, but what I have was positive.

    Exceptional speaker. Has the X factor that few possess. Too young and immature to be leader atm, though, so perhaps just as well that she is not able to run - because she might have won.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 28,729
    HYUFD said:
    Ah but it’s all about north London isn’t it? Last 3 leaders including Starmer.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 224
    edited January 13
    kicorse said:

    eek said:

    No offence, but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I think that's the point. Were it not for the good people of NW Durham, the labour party would be well and truly buggered as their membership (who are now for more left leaning than their existing MPs) wouldvote for a highly unsuitable leader.
    No, Mike was saying he was impressed by some of her media performances. My point is i've seen no evidence she would have been any better than RLB, as if somehow RLB isn't the best version of Corbynism on offer.

    It's just a fact that other than say McDonnell Corbynism never really had much in the way of competent torchbearers.
    Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.
    Hmm... I didn't know about the "never be friends with a Tory" remark. Just found it in the Independent, and it is bad. The anger is justified, but making it personal to every individual in a group, including ones she's never met, is not. It wouldn't be such a problem if it were caveated with a "but of course I work cross-party on common causes" (see John McDonnell), but it wasn't.

    Well, anyway, she lost her seat. Maybe if and when she returns, she'll have moved on from that.
    Main thing is that its not even a fringe viewpoint.

    Just be glad she's a footnote now.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,518
    HYUFD said:
    The Shadow Minister for Sitting Next to Jeremy
  • Also

    PLEASE NOMINATE BURGON
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 224
    edited January 13
    image

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Sanders surges as progressives flock to him over Warren

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/sanders-progressives-flock-warren-098065
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,358
    kjh said:

    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    Quincel said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why do they do this ? A simple apology costs nothing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/13/police-reject-judges-call-to-apologise-over-wrongful-conviction
    Police have refused to apologise to a man wrongly jailed for 25 years because officers lied at his trial, even after the now-retired appeal court judge who quashed the conviction told the Guardian that the force should say sorry.

    Cheshire police said that while they were “concerned” at the wrongful jailing of Paul Blackburn, who was convicted as a teenager in 1978 for the attempted murder and sexual assault of a young boy, no apology was needed as procedures at the time of the investigation were “very different”....

    Maybe a cautious lawyer thinks an apology opens the door to legal liability? I must say I agree with you though, it just comes across as bitter and like the organisation won't accept wrongdoing ever.
    From the article:

    Burton said the force was “satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation”, an apparent intimation they still believe Blackburn was responsible.

    It looks like they think he still did it...
    Without presenting a shred of evidence for that view.
    It sounds to me more that they don’t want to look any further into their behaviour at the time, and their own investigation which cleared the officers of any wrongdoing

    Which of course means that a thug who nearly murdered a 12year old is still wandering about free...... unless convicted of something else....... and the chap, now in his 40's who was attacked has to live with no-one being caught.
    It doesn't necessarily mean that. It appears (from the police comments) that the police 'know' he did it and appear to have falsified the evidence to get a conviction.

    We of course should not live in a society where the police can do that, as they did quite a bit around the 70s as we know. if you are dealing with someone's freedom it needs to up to an unbiased jury to decide on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt even if it does mean a villain may go free.
    There’s a bit in the podcast where Blackburn says that the police told him that they ‘knew’ that either he or his brother Fred did it, and they were going to get one them.
  • kicorse said:

    eek said:

    No offence, but the only people I've seen who rated Pidcock are the same people who have got everything wrong the last few years.

    Clearly the good people of NW Durham weren't particularly impressed either.

    I think that's the point. Were it not for the good people of NW Durham, the labour party would be well and truly buggered as their membership (who are now for more left leaning than their existing MPs) wouldvote for a highly unsuitable leader.
    No, Mike was saying he was impressed by some of her media performances. My point is i've seen no evidence she would have been any better than RLB, as if somehow RLB isn't the best version of Corbynism on offer.

    It's just a fact that other than say McDonnell Corbynism never really had much in the way of competent torchbearers.
    Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.
    Hmm... I didn't know about the "never be friends with a Tory" remark. Just found it in the Independent, and it is bad. The anger is justified, but making it personal to every individual in a group, including ones she's never met, is not. It wouldn't be such a problem if it were caveated with a "but of course I work cross-party on common causes" (see John McDonnell), but it wasn't.

    Well, anyway, she lost her seat. Maybe if and when she returns, she'll have moved on from that.
    It's the very ugly "never kissed a tory" attitude. Where there are sections of the labour party who have decided that all people who vote Conservative are wholesale repugnant, inherently evil and without redeeming features.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    NYT:

    "The editorial board, which is separate from the publication’s newsroom, is making its candidate interviews public this year. It will endorse a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination on Jan. 19."

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,239
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:
    Ah but it’s all about north London isn’t it? Last 3 leaders including Starmer.
    To be fair, I don't think they need *many* seats in East Anglia.

    They need some on the London fringe (e.g. Thurrock, majority, er, 11,000) and a few like Ipswich (maj 5,479).

    However the number of seats where Labour is no longer even competitive is perhaps a greater sign of the lack of a voting constituency that would see them win a majority elsewhere.
  • HYUFD said:
    Thank you for this.

    Dawn butler would make a good deputy.
This discussion has been closed.