Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Monday night PB Nighthawks Café

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 27 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Monday night PB Nighthawks Café

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 324
    edited July 27
    First. Is a Lib Dem comeback on the way?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705
    Second. No.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    IshmaelZ said:

    Second. No.

    Doesn't that also depend on the time horizon?
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,264
    ClippP said:

    First. Is a Lib Dem comeback on the way?

    Depends if Layla gets in!

    :lol:
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232
    edited July 27
    Here's some material for you nighthawks to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,205
    Ave_it said:

    ClippP said:

    First. Is a Lib Dem comeback on the way?

    Depends if Layla gets in!

    :lol:
    Please for sake of AveIt - don't mention Watford
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859

    Here's some material to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



    It's a little misleading, though, because it doesn't count German pensions (which are mostly defined benefit) as part of assets.

    So a German could be looking forward to €20,000 year for 30 years post retirement and that would show up as zero, while a Brit looking forward to the same would have savings of £300,000.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Second. No.

    Doesn't that also depend on the time horizon?
    Anything is possible but their continued existence is only one GE disaster away from being in question.

    Having said that I shall probably vote for them next time round on a can't stand Boris, can't vote labour basis if they field a decent candidate. Perhaps others will too.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232
    edited July 27
    rcs1000 said:

    Here's some material to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



    It's a little misleading, though, because it doesn't count German pensions (which are mostly defined benefit) as part of assets.

    So a German could be looking forward to €20,000 year for 30 years post retirement and that would show up as zero, while a Brit looking forward to the same would have savings of £300,000.
    True, but no-one in the UK counts defined-benefit pensions as part of 'wealth' either. If they did, they'd discover that NHS staff and teachers are surprisingly wealthy, and that would never do.

    In other words, simplistic comparisons are simplistic. Who'd a thunk it?
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,264
    edited July 27

    Ave_it said:

    ClippP said:

    First. Is a Lib Dem comeback on the way?

    Depends if Layla gets in!

    :lol:
    Please for sake of Ave_It - don't mention Watford
    It's all about the cricket now! Football is so last week!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331

    Here's some material for you nighthawks to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



    If that's true, then I am indeed astounded. It is hammered home how even amongst comparators we are supposed to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to inequality.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    isam said:

    Why do men lie about their height? I can’t see that it really matters

    It's the pointlessness that means I do not. If I'm going to meet the person (or they are already standing in front of me), they'll see it is a lie, the equivalent of wearing a bad toupee and thinking everyone is too stupid to see it, or I'm not going to meet them in which case who the hell cares if they think I'm 6ft 6 or 5f 3?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    ClippP said:

    First. Is a Lib Dem comeback on the way?

    Perennially.

    I wish it were. I think a strong third party in our system makes a big, positive difference, keeps the big two honest.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232
    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    Why do men lie about their height? I can’t see that it really matters

    It's the pointlessness that means I do not. If I'm going to meet the person (or they are already standing in front of me), they'll see it is a lie, the equivalent of wearing a bad toupee and thinking everyone is too stupid to see it, or I'm not going to meet them in which case who the hell cares if they think I'm 6ft 6 or 5f 3?
    Don't worry, on the internet none of us knows you're 5ft3.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's some material to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



    It's a little misleading, though, because it doesn't count German pensions (which are mostly defined benefit) as part of assets.

    So a German could be looking forward to €20,000 year for 30 years post retirement and that would show up as zero, while a Brit looking forward to the same would have savings of £300,000.
    True, but no-one in the UK counts defined-benefit pensions as part of 'wealth' either. If they did, they'd discover that NHS staff and teachers are surprisingly wealthy, and that would never do.

    In other words, simplistic comparisons are simplistic. Who'd a thunk it?
    :-)

    The difference though, is mega. In the UK, there are £6.1 trillion of assets in defined contribution pension funds. In German, it's like £200bn - something like a 30-1 difference
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's some material to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



    It's a little misleading, though, because it doesn't count German pensions (which are mostly defined benefit) as part of assets.

    So a German could be looking forward to €20,000 year for 30 years post retirement and that would show up as zero, while a Brit looking forward to the same would have savings of £300,000.
    True, but no-one in the UK counts defined-benefit pensions as part of 'wealth' either. If they did, they'd discover that NHS staff and teachers are surprisingly wealthy, and that would never do.

    In other words, simplistic comparisons are simplistic. Who'd a thunk it?
    Though UK pensions are not ‘mostly’ defined benefit.

    Robert’s point retains most of its point.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,088
    ClippP said:

    First. Is a Lib Dem comeback on the way?

    Honest answer, possibly.

    It's impossible to know how 2021-23 is going to play out but there will be a period of sustained Government unpopularity. It usually happens with Conservative Governments from about 18 months after the election and lasts for another 18-24 months.

    The LDs have traditionally been the first port of call for the disillusioned Conservative voter who wants to "protest" and given the huge set of elections next May (assuming they happen) and given the County seats the Conservatives will be defending were won at the height of the May popularity in 2017, the chances for LD gains in the south and south west seem there if the local organisations can manage them.

    Second part will be luck. A by-election in the right place, an issue on which the LDs can chart a distinctive and popular course - both would be helpful.

    It's also true that moderate Labour can help because, as some have already said, the prospect of a Starmer Government will be very different from that of a Corbyn Government. That will allow disenchanted Conservatives to vote tactically with a degree of safety.

    The Party needs to work out (not now) how to respond to Starmer. The temptation to get close in a "progressive bloc" should be resisted but that's not to say IF Labour come forward with sensible policies they shouldn't be welcomed and supported.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's some material to ponder. Doesn't quite match the politically-motivated preconception, does it?



    It's a little misleading, though, because it doesn't count German pensions (which are mostly defined benefit) as part of assets.

    So a German could be looking forward to €20,000 year for 30 years post retirement and that would show up as zero, while a Brit looking forward to the same would have savings of £300,000.
    True, but no-one in the UK counts defined-benefit pensions as part of 'wealth' either. If they did, they'd discover that NHS staff and teachers are surprisingly wealthy, and that would never do.

    In other words, simplistic comparisons are simplistic. Who'd a thunk it?
    :-)

    The difference though, is mega. In the UK, there are £6.1 trillion of assets in defined contribution pension funds. In German, it's like £200bn - something like a 30-1 difference
    Yes, point taken. Even allowing for that, though, the lack of non-pension net wealth in the bottom 50% of Germans looks pretty astonishing. I suppose they have a sort-of asset in the form of the prospect of generous state support if they lose their jobs, though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 11,710
    Anecdote time: Next door neighbour has tested negative but has ongoing chest problems and needs a chest X-ray. Doc suspects false negative especially as her daughter was positive.

    Neighbours on other side think they had it early doors.

    Chap I sit beside at work also had it.

    I don't think I've been over-cautious.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 14,821
    edited July 27
    Boris Johnson #StayAlert
    @BorisJohnson
    · 14h
    Losing weight is hard but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier.

    In other Government news half price McDonalds 3 times a week

    Fookin Clown
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,763
    edited July 27


    image

    What's the source? Not doubting you, just interested.
    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/downloads/csv/coronavirus-cases_latest.csv

    its updated each day around 4pm

    I've written an application that takes the raw data and builds a data cube out of it - which makes it easy to pull out data by dimension. In this case :

    - Low Level Authorities in London
    - Absolute numbers (as opposed to scaled)
    - Last 30 days.

    As a finishing touch, it builds an Excel spreadsheet, with some graphs, including all the data.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 47,661
    edited July 27

    Boris Johnson #StayAlert
    @BorisJohnson
    · 14h
    Losing weight is hard but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier.

    In other Government news half price McDonalds 3 times a week

    Fookin Clown

    Except that wasn't the government news, was it. It was support for the entire hospitality sector. Or would you rather half of the restaurants in the country went bust?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,232
    This is probably the most significant non-Covid news of the night:

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,824

    Anecdote time: Next door neighbour has tested negative but has ongoing chest problems and needs a chest X-ray. Doc suspects false negative especially as her daughter was positive.

    Neighbours on other side think they had it early doors.

    Chap I sit beside at work also had it.

    I don't think I've been over-cautious.

    The negative is probably wrong. Would be wise to assume so anyway.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,928

    This is probably the most significant non-Covid news of the night:

    Negotiating ploy perhaps.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049
    This may not be news to those in the industry, but I was very surprised to learn Intel is seriously contemplating not building its own fabs anymore.
    That would lead to the entire advanced semiconductor supply chain being Asian based.

    https://www.eetimes.com/intel-outside-just-like-all-the-others/
    ... Last week, Bob Swan, Intel CEO, told analysts the company would by 2022 decide whether it would continue the internal development of next-gen technology process and increase its use of foundries.

    “We will be pragmatic and objective in deploying the process technology that delivers the most predictability and performance for our customers, whether that be in our process, external foundry or a combination of both,” Swan said.

    The en masse outsourcing of critical technology, manufacturing and systems development outside of the core consuming centers to Asia has implications for future innovations in a market as critical as semiconductors. The outsourcing of electronic assembly is one thing, but the surrender of semiconductor process by the West is foolish, no matter the immediate financial benefits to the individual enterprise...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049

    This is probably the most significant non-Covid news of the night:

    Negotiating ploy perhaps.
    Sure.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119
    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573

    This is probably the most significant non-Covid news of the night:

    Negotiating ploy perhaps.
    At what point do elected UK Government ministers show any embarrassment at all about stories (credible or otherwise) that UK Government policy is directed almost entirely by an unelected bureaucrat?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    edited July 27
    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    I cannot tell what the petition is actually petitioning for. However much outrage that seems like a flaw. And merely 'overturning' it is not a precise call for action.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,824
    If you compare Netweather and the BBC weather site they have very different predictions for Manchester tomorrow.

    It will be interesting to see which is more accurate, and whether the one that gets it wrong owns up to it.

    My money is on Netweather (and a draw.)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300

    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


    I would rather wait and see what the judge decides about the sentence. He could quite easily sentence them to life imprisonment just as he could for murder. And given their behaviour and apparent lack of remorse I wold not be surprised if he did so.

    A murder conviction ran the risk of being overturned where a manslaughter conviction would be much harder to challenge.
    This.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    edited July 27

    Boris Johnson #StayAlert
    @BorisJohnson
    · 14h
    Losing weight is hard but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier.

    In other Government news half price McDonalds 3 times a week

    Fookin Clown

    I don't see the problem. It is hard, it's on us as individuals, and McDonalds is already very cheap. We can be encouraged, but the presence of cheap food which is not particularly healthy is not a barrier to us succeeding, or not. If it were, the only method would be to ban such food entirely. It's not any government's fault I am a bit overweight, and I don't buy that people are not educated well enough - no one does not know McDonalds and not exercising enough is bad for us.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,050
    edited July 27
    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    I doubt any airlines are making much money at the moment, this year is mainly about survival
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710

    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


    I would rather wait and see what the judge decides about the sentence. He could quite easily sentence them to life imprisonment just as he could for murder. And given their behaviour and apparent lack of remorse I wold not be surprised if he did so.

    A murder conviction ran the risk of being overturned where a manslaughter conviction would be much harder to challenge.
    It’s also not a “miscarriage of justice” so much as “I don’t like what the jury decided”
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,084

    Boris Johnson #StayAlert
    @BorisJohnson
    · 14h
    Losing weight is hard but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier.

    In other Government news half price McDonalds 3 times a week

    Fookin Clown

    I'm trying to lose weight by making smarter choices and that applies to eating in restaurants too. I'm hoping to use this offer to have a nice cheeky Nando's . . . while sticking to my diet plan.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    Perhaps I have got you mixed up with someone else. If I have, I apologise.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,454
    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    I'm surprised they ran a flight with so few passengers. Surely it would have made more sense to reduce the number of flights so that more people are on the ones they do run.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573
    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    Conventionally, posting something from a third party site without any comment might be considered to imply approval of the content posted. Similar to politicians getting into trouble retweeting stuff. If you don't want your views to be misunderstood, it is generally best to add some words of your own, no?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,084
    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    How's it a miscarriage of justice then? They've been convicted of manslaughter.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,831

    Anecdote time: Next door neighbour has tested negative but has ongoing chest problems and needs a chest X-ray. Doc suspects false negative especially as her daughter was positive.

    Neighbours on other side think they had it early doors.

    Chap I sit beside at work also had it.

    I don't think I've been over-cautious.

    Keep dodging them bullets. Sounds like you are something of a Covid-magnet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331

    This is probably the most significant non-Covid news of the night:

    Negotiating ploy perhaps.
    Everything is a negotiating ploy, retroactively, if it works.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119
    edited July 27

    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    How's it a miscarriage of justice then? They've been convicted of manslaughter.
    Well I guess people think they should be convicted of murder. Direct any further questions you have to the people who started the petition. I linked to it because I was taken by the mothers comments not to try and get your signature
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331

    Jezza's legal fund hits £300K.

    Enough to start a new party.

    I bet most of those donating to him would be very happy if that were the case, even though Corbyn himself has always been loyal to the Labour brand (if not in parliamentary votes).

    Another instance, of many apparently, where supporters of his are very into one view even though the great man himself supposedly does not share it. Hmm.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    alex_ said:

    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    Conventionally, posting something from a third party site without any comment might be considered to imply approval of the content posted. Similar to politicians getting into trouble retweeting stuff. If you don't want your views to be misunderstood, it is generally best to add some words of your own, no?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,901
    isam said:

    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    How's it a miscarriage of justice then? They've been convicted of manslaughter.
    Well I guess people think they should be convicted of murder. Direct any further questions you have to the people who started the petition. I linked to it because I was taken by the mothers comments not to try and get your signature
    Yes, but the jury listened to all the evidence and decided it was manslaughter rather than murder. We await sentencing. Justice requires empathy, but also needs objective detachment.

  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809
    The great Sir Terry on misleading heights:

    “What's this about a dwarf, Sergeant?" said Vimes abruptly.
    Colon's brow wrinkled. "What dwarf?"
    "The one who's just joined the Watch. Name of-" Vimes hesitated-"Carrot, or something. "
    "Him?" Colon's mouth dropped open. "He's a dwarf? I always said you couldn't trust them little buggers! He fooled me all right, Captain, the little sod must of lied about his height!"
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    Andy_JS said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    I'm surprised they ran a flight with so few passengers. Surely it would have made more sense to reduce the number of flights so that more people are on the ones they do run.
    They have reduced from 3 daily to 1 already!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    That’s harsh.

    To be a really successful lawyer you need to empathise with people.

    She’s lost her son, who was killed in the most horrifying fashion. She doesn’t care about the technicalities of the law - all she knows is that “murder” feels like the right answer.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    How's it a miscarriage of justice then? They've been convicted of manslaughter.
    Well I guess people think they should be convicted of murder. Direct any further questions you have to the people who started the petition. I linked to it because I was taken by the mothers comments not to try and get your signature
    Yes, but the jury listened to all the evidence and decided it was manslaughter rather than murder. We await sentencing. Justice requires empathy, but also needs objective detachment.

    The jury didn't actually listen to all the relevant evidence because some of it hadn't happened yet (the conduct of the defs after sentence) and some of it is inadmissible (previous form of defs) and in this particular case this really, really matters because the main argument for manslaughter is that nobody, thief or not, is such a shit that they deliberately drag a man to death behind a car. These guys were.

    And the other thing is, the jury didn't necessarily listen to the evidence, they may also have listened to threats about what would have happened to themselves or their families in the event of a murder verdict. So it's not as straightforward as you suggest.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @isam we’ve already had this discussion, and it was clear you don’t understand the murder offence in England and Wales. Wait for sentencing ffs.

    Not me who started the petition you complete moron, and I didn’t say it should be murder at any time, in fact I said they probably didn’t mean it.

    Apologise or double down, I’ll leave it to you

    How's it a miscarriage of justice then? They've been convicted of manslaughter.
    Well I guess people think they should be convicted of murder. Direct any further questions you have to the people who started the petition. I linked to it because I was taken by the mothers comments not to try and get your signature
    Yes, but the jury listened to all the evidence and decided it was manslaughter rather than murder. We await sentencing. Justice requires empathy, but also needs objective detachment.

    I think the petition is a good idea because it will remind the person in charge of sentencing how angry people are
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 465

    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


    I would rather wait and see what the judge decides about the sentence. He could quite easily sentence them to life imprisonment just as he could for murder. And given their behaviour and apparent lack of remorse I wold not be surprised if he did so.

    A murder conviction ran the risk of being overturned where a manslaughter conviction would be much harder to challenge.
    Even if the judge throws the book at them their sentence will almost certainly be reduced on appeal. Unless jury tampering can be proved I don't see how the verdict can be challenged.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    No - the jury accepted that it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the killers intended to kill, or cause gbh, to the victim.

    Its much easier to prove that the killers recklessly caused the man’s death, hence the manslaughter conviction.

    Either way, they have been convicted of unlawfully causing his death, and will be punished accordingly. If the sentence is not life, then we are in agreement that it should be.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705
    dodrade said:

    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


    I would rather wait and see what the judge decides about the sentence. He could quite easily sentence them to life imprisonment just as he could for murder. And given their behaviour and apparent lack of remorse I wold not be surprised if he did so.

    A murder conviction ran the risk of being overturned where a manslaughter conviction would be much harder to challenge.
    Even if the judge throws the book at them their sentence will almost certainly be reduced on appeal. Unless jury tampering can be proved I don't see how the verdict can be challenged.
    That's a curious thing to be almost certain about. Why would it be?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Presume you got a good view from more than one window? That's really what I care the most about when flying. Mostly because I do so little of it.

    Can remember when I enjoyed luxury of space flying from SeaTac to Heathrow & back - in weeks before Cheney-Bush launched the Iraq War.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Presume you got a good view from more than one window? That's really what I care the most about when flying. Mostly because I do so little of it.

    Can remember when I enjoyed luxury of space flying from SeaTac to Heathrow & back - in weeks before Cheney-Bush launched the Iraq War.
    I watched Charlize Theron play Megan Kelly in Bombshell, so definitely a good view!

    (Great movie as well)
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119
    edited July 27
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    Charles said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    That’s harsh.

    To be a really successful lawyer you need to empathise with people.

    She’s lost her son, who was killed in the most horrifying fashion. She doesn’t care about the technicalities of the law - all she knows is that “murder” feels like the right answer.
    I appreciate that Charles, but someone, the police, the CPS, or whoever, should have explained what a murder conviction requires early on, in order to moderate her expectations.

    She should be pleased that her son’s killers will be locked away for a long, long time. The justice system is working!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710

    Charles said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    That’s harsh.

    To be a really successful lawyer you need to empathise with people.

    She’s lost her son, who was killed in the most horrifying fashion. She doesn’t care about the technicalities of the law - all she knows is that “murder” feels like the right answer.
    I appreciate that Charles, but someone, the police, the CPS, or whoever, should have explained what a murder conviction requires early on, in order to moderate her expectations.

    She should be pleased that her son’s killers will be locked away for a long, long time. The justice system is working!
    And I’m sure they did. But I doubt that she really absorbed it.

    Relatives of victims are never pleased. At the end of the day her son is never coming back.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,454
    I thought Sweden was supposed to be one of the most equal countries in the world.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573
    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    One of them pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The others not guilty. It is not possible their defences were different?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    I’m pretty sure they said they were trying to shake him loose. But I haven’t followed al the details
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    It doesn’t matter what their defence was. What matters was whether the prosecution could prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Being reckless to the possibility of death is not enough for murder.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    What % chance do you give the jury was got at?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705

    Charles said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    That’s harsh.

    To be a really successful lawyer you need to empathise with people.

    She’s lost her son, who was killed in the most horrifying fashion. She doesn’t care about the technicalities of the law - all she knows is that “murder” feels like the right answer.
    I appreciate that Charles, but someone, the police, the CPS, or whoever, should have explained what a murder conviction requires early on, in order to moderate her expectations.

    She should be pleased that her son’s killers will be locked away for a long, long time. The justice system is working!
    Um, presumably the CPS thought there was a good chance of a murder conviction, cos they kind of have to think that in order to bring the charge. Secondly, explanations "early on" would have nothing to do with it because her expectations would be based on what happened at the trial and no trial ever, ever unfolds in exactly the way the parties or their lawyers expect. Trust me on this.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    edited July 27
    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8450827/amp/Pc-Harper-killed-line-duty-tried-stop-thieves-jury-told.html

    ‘“Swung side to side like a pendulum in an effort to dislodge him” the Old Bailey was told.’

    [admittedly it’s not clear who said that from the way the quote is phrased, bit given it undermines the prosecution case I assume it wasn’t them! Probably a witness]

    Edit: later on in the article it makes clear it was the prosecutor who said that... 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    What % chance do you give the jury was got at?
    I’d say pretty low considering they were convicted.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Flying to LA?

    How did you get in?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Presume you got a good view from more than one window? That's really what I care the most about when flying. Mostly because I do so little of it.

    Can remember when I enjoyed luxury of space flying from SeaTac to Heathrow & back - in weeks before Cheney-Bush launched the Iraq War.
    I watched Charlize Theron play Megan Kelly in Bombshell, so definitely a good view!

    (Great movie as well)
    Like most of the upper classes, you seen inordinately preoccupied with sex.

    Like most of us lower classes as well!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,319
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Flying to LA?

    How did you get in?
    National security exception?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    It doesn’t matter what their defence was. What matters was whether the prosecution could prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Being reckless to the possibility of death is not enough for murder.
    I am pleased and impressed by your success in your recent exams, but you don't actually need to explain the law to me. In this case it matters a great deal because it is, quite obviously, easier to prove that x intended a result if he has admitted that he knew the result was a physical possibility than if he hasn't admitted that.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    That’s harsh.

    To be a really successful lawyer you need to empathise with people.

    She’s lost her son, who was killed in the most horrifying fashion. She doesn’t care about the technicalities of the law - all she knows is that “murder” feels like the right answer.
    I appreciate that Charles, but someone, the police, the CPS, or whoever, should have explained what a murder conviction requires early on, in order to moderate her expectations.

    She should be pleased that her son’s killers will be locked away for a long, long time. The justice system is working!
    Um, presumably the CPS thought there was a good chance of a murder conviction, cos they kind of have to think that in order to bring the charge. Secondly, explanations "early on" would have nothing to do with it because her expectations would be based on what happened at the trial and no trial ever, ever unfolds in exactly the way the parties or their lawyers expect. Trust me on this.
    Well of course there was a chance of a jury convicting them for murder.

    I blame the fact to the layman “manslaughter” means “by accident” when it really doesn’t in reality.

    We should have a 3rd degree murder charge like in America to rectify this misconception.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,710
    edited July 27
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Flying to LA?

    How did you get in?
    🤫

    I can be very persuasive when I want to be. Are you licensed in CA yet? I need insurance for my car and Progressive being slow
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    It doesn’t matter what their defence was. What matters was whether the prosecution could prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Being reckless to the possibility of death is not enough for murder.
    I am pleased and impressed by your success in your recent exams, but you don't actually need to explain the law to me. In this case it matters a great deal because it is, quite obviously, easier to prove that x intended a result if he has admitted that he knew the result was a physical possibility than if he hasn't admitted that.
    Of course you’re right, and I’m not trying to claim to be an expert, but surely it being “easier to prove” is not the same as actually proving it?

    If I was on the jury, I’d find it difficult to decide definitely that someone intended a consequence beyond all reasonable doubt, when I could be sure that they recklessly ignored the possibility ie manslaughter.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    edited July 27
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Flying to LA?

    How did you get in?
    Flew to Tijuana then took the Underground to San Ysidro bus station
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    What % chance do you give the jury was got at?
    I’d say pretty low considering they were convicted.
    That really is bonkers. Acquittal was never within a million miles of being on the cards.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    IshmaelZ said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    What % chance do you give the jury was got at?
    I’d say pretty low considering they were convicted.
    That really is bonkers. Acquittal was never within a million miles of being on the cards.
    So what are you suggesting? The jury was pressured into convicting them of manslaughter instead of murder, only for them to hopefully get life sentences anyway?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,675


    image

    What's the source? Not doubting you, just interested.
    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/downloads/csv/coronavirus-cases_latest.csv

    its updated each day around 4pm

    I've written an application that takes the raw data and builds a data cube out of it - which makes it easy to pull out data by dimension. In this case :

    - Low Level Authorities in London
    - Absolute numbers (as opposed to scaled)
    - Last 30 days.

    As a finishing touch, it builds an Excel spreadsheet, with some graphs, including all the data.
    Excellent, thanks.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 465
    IshmaelZ said:

    dodrade said:

    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


    I would rather wait and see what the judge decides about the sentence. He could quite easily sentence them to life imprisonment just as he could for murder. And given their behaviour and apparent lack of remorse I wold not be surprised if he did so.

    A murder conviction ran the risk of being overturned where a manslaughter conviction would be much harder to challenge.
    Even if the judge throws the book at them their sentence will almost certainly be reduced on appeal. Unless jury tampering can be proved I don't see how the verdict can be challenged.
    That's a curious thing to be almost certain about. Why would it be?
    In a murder case local to me an man convicted of murder (having just finished a jail term for rape) was originally given a whole life tariff but was reduced to 35 years on appeal.

    Also Long has to be given credit for his guilty plea so can't receive the maximum sentence.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    dodrade said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    dodrade said:

    isam said:

    Overturn a miscarriage of justice

    Three travellers hug as they are CLEARED of murdering PC, but convicted of manslaughter as his widow weeps in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Travellers who dragged officer for a mile behind getaway car as he tried to stop them stealing a quad bike are convicted of manslaughter - as it emerges police had to protect jury from intimidation

    PC Andrew Harper, 28, had tried to stop the thieves stealing a quad bike and his ankles were lassoed by the trailing loading strap as the teenagers tried to escape in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

    For over a mile he was towed helplessly behind the Seat Toledo by his feet as the car reached speeds of up to 60mph with driver Henry Long, 19, swerving violently to try and release the stricken officer.

    Long and his two friends Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18, were all accused of murder but convicted only of manslaughter and were seen joyfully embracing each other via a videolink from HMP Belmarsh in London.

    Their families cheered as the verdict was announced - but PC Harper's wife Lissie sobbed in court. The three killers had laughed and joked with each other during the trial and when Long was charged he said he 'didn't give a f***.'

    Meanwhile it can now be reported that the jury were given special protection by police because detectives believed associates of the defendants were planning to intimidate them

    https://www.change.org/p/government-overturn-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=26953628&recruited_by_id=9b3ef220-cf21-012f-0107-4040aa777426


    I would rather wait and see what the judge decides about the sentence. He could quite easily sentence them to life imprisonment just as he could for murder. And given their behaviour and apparent lack of remorse I wold not be surprised if he did so.

    A murder conviction ran the risk of being overturned where a manslaughter conviction would be much harder to challenge.
    Even if the judge throws the book at them their sentence will almost certainly be reduced on appeal. Unless jury tampering can be proved I don't see how the verdict can be challenged.
    That's a curious thing to be almost certain about. Why would it be?
    In a murder case local to me an man convicted of murder (having just finished a jail term for rape) was originally given a whole life tariff but was reduced to 35 years on appeal.

    Also Long has to be given credit for his guilty plea so can't receive the maximum sentence.

    Can’t, as in absolutely can’t?

    Apologies if thats a stupid question, I don’t know anything about sentencing.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Flying to LA?

    How did you get in?
    🤫

    I can be very persuasive when I want to be. Are you licensed in CA yet? I need insurance for my car and Progressive being slow
    Heck, you don't need no stinkin's insurance, Boss. Just go see my good friend Lazlo at his "office" out behind the Buena Park Wal-Mart. Bring $50 in quarters and tell 'em Sea Shanty sent yez!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705

    IshmaelZ said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    What % chance do you give the jury was got at?
    I’d say pretty low considering they were convicted.
    That really is bonkers. Acquittal was never within a million miles of being on the cards.
    So what are you suggesting? The jury was pressured into convicting them of manslaughter instead of murder, only for them to hopefully get life sentences anyway?
    Yes, except that the last nine words of your question make no sense. If you look at the reaction to the verdict, the defz clearly thought the lesser conviction was something to celebrate and worth having. Nobody with any sense would think acquittal was achievable without terrorising every single juror, whereas to get either manslaughter or a retrial you only have to terrorise two (in this case - 3 usually but they ended up a jury of 11).
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    edited July 27
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    Did they admit to knowing he was tied to the car? I thought they were saying they didn’t

    “ During the trial, the prosecution said it had sought murder charges after alleging the defendants were aware the officer was being dragged behind the car.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53526636
    It doesn’t matter what they said. The prosecution had to prove that not only did they know, but also that they subsequently intended to cause death or gbh. Being reckless to that possibility is not enough for murder. Clearly the jury believed the prosecution did not prove that intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    What % chance do you give the jury was got at?
    I’d say pretty low considering they were convicted.
    That really is bonkers. Acquittal was never within a million miles of being on the cards.
    So what are you suggesting? The jury was pressured into convicting them of manslaughter instead of murder, only for them to hopefully get life sentences anyway?
    Yes, except that the last nine words of your question make no sense. If you look at the reaction to the verdict, the defz clearly thought the lesser conviction was something to celebrate and worth having. Nobody with any sense would think acquittal was achievable without terrorising every single juror, whereas to get either manslaughter or a retrial you only have to terrorise two (in this case - 3 usually but they ended up a jury of 11).
    I never said that there was no chance that there was foul play. It just seems to be a case of “I don’t like the verdict, so there must be foul play”.

    I know that they were clearly happy with being convicted of manslaughter, but that seems misguided to me.

    Regardless, I appreciate the measured debate and you give me much to think about.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 47,661

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Report from yesterday’s LA flight:

    - 2 business class passengers
    - 5 premium economy (inc me)
    - 18 economy

    BA not making money on what used to be a reliably profitable route

    Flying to LA?

    How did you get in?
    National security exception?
    Special passport. ;)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,084

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    It doesn’t matter what their defence was. What matters was whether the prosecution could prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Being reckless to the possibility of death is not enough for murder.
    But there doesn't need to be an intention to kill either does there?

    I don't see how they could not be intending to cause GBH if they knowingly drove with him entangled . . . and if that's the case then how is it not murder?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,705

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    It doesn’t matter what their defence was. What matters was whether the prosecution could prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Being reckless to the possibility of death is not enough for murder.
    I am pleased and impressed by your success in your recent exams, but you don't actually need to explain the law to me. In this case it matters a great deal because it is, quite obviously, easier to prove that x intended a result if he has admitted that he knew the result was a physical possibility than if he hasn't admitted that.
    Of course you’re right, and I’m not trying to claim to be an expert, but surely it being “easier to prove” is not the same as actually proving it?

    If I was on the jury, I’d find it difficult to decide definitely that someone intended a consequence beyond all reasonable doubt, when I could be sure that they recklessly ignored the possibility ie manslaughter.
    Sure, but jurors manage it sometimes. If they didn’t there would be no murder convictions.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    The killers have been convicted of unlawfully killing her son, and will hopefully get life in prison. Not sure what the issue is to be honest.

    Well it seems to me, from my ability to read words, the issue for the mother is that the jury accepted the killers didn’t know the deceased was attached to the car they were driving
    Not quite.

    The jury decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the killers intended to kill the policeman.

    Their defence was, essentially, they were trying to shake him loose and didn’t care if he was injured in the process.

    I’m not sure how you could prove intent in that situation - the facts are not in doubt but you are trying to determine motive.
    What? Where are you getting that? Every report i have seen states that their defence was that they did not know he was there.
    It doesn’t matter what their defence was. What matters was whether the prosecution could prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Being reckless to the possibility of death is not enough for murder.
    But there doesn't need to be an intention to kill either does there?

    I don't see how they could not be intending to cause GBH if they knowingly drove with him entangled . . . and if that's the case then how is it not murder?
    Because you have to prove that they intended to cause that GBH, rather than simply to untangle him, or to get away. Objectively its hard to prove a state of mind.

    Its much easier to prove that they would have recognised that their actions might lead to GBH, but proceeded anyway. That’s 3rd degree murder in America, but manslaughter here.
Sign In or Register to comment.