Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who’ll be the Judge? Legitimately elected governments are not

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited February 16 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who’ll be the Judge? Legitimately elected governments are not excused the obligation to comply with the law

On 11 February, following a court ruling, some Jamaican nationals convicted of serious crimes were not put on their scheduled deportation flight because they had not received legal advice about their deportation. This ruling does not mean that this group will be entitled to stay in the UK. Nor does it mean that the government will not be able to proceed with the deportations. What it does mean is that there will be a pause to allow them to obtain legal advice. To judge by the fury of Ministers, one would have thought that the courts had ordered the government to provide these criminals free Xmas holidays in Mustique for the rest of their lives. What possible objection could there be to giving criminals the opportunity to obtain legal advice? Some might, in fact, be British nationals or have some other claim to prevent deportation. If that claim was well-founded under our laws, surely the government would not wish to risk breaking the law?  

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Be you ever so high, Number 10 is above you.
  • In America (hat-tip Amy Klobuchar's favourite statistic on 538) President Trump has a less than stellar success rate using agencies for arms-length deregulation.

    The Institute for Policy Integrity tracks the outcomes of litigation over the Trump administration’s use of agencies to deregulate as well as to implement its other policy priorities. This Roundup includes litigation over agency actions such as regulations, guidance documents, and agency memoranda.

    An outcome is considered unsuccessful for the Trump administration if (1) a court ruled against the agency or (2) the relevant agency withdrew the action after being sued...

    Overall record is 4 Successful, 66 Unsuccessful.

    https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup

    It is possible that US alt-right annoyance at courts is making its way across the Atlantic. That is a 95 per cent loss rate.
  • On social media, there seem to be a lot of complaints that criminals convicted of offences, especially the industrial-scale rape of girls up north, keep their anonymity. Of course, this is because they face other charges that will be tried separately but it may be that the appalling 1-2 year delays in getting to court are a large part of the problem. Delays due to government cuts have undermined public confidence in the courts generally, as well as destroying any deterrent effect. Commit crime, get caught, and nothing happens for months on end.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,949
    edited February 16
    Suella Braverman, three weeks before her appointment as Attorney General:

    Yes, courts should operate to curb abuse of power by government but if a small number of unelected, unaccountable judges continue to determine wider public policy, putting them at odds with elected decision-makers, our democracy cannot be said to be representative. Parliament’s legitimacy is unrivalled and the reason why we must take back control, not just from the EU, but from the judiciary.
    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/suella-braverman-people-we-elect-must-take-back-control-from-people-we-dont-who-include-the-judges.html
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 13,533

    Suella Braverman, three weeks before her appointment as Attorney General:

    Yes, courts should operate to curb abuse of power by government but if a small number of unelected, unaccountable judges continue to determine wider public policy, putting them at odds with elected decision-makers, our democracy cannot be said to be representative. Parliament’s legitimacy is unrivalled and the reason why we must take back control, not just from the EU, but from the judiciary.
    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/suella-braverman-people-we-elect-must-take-back-control-from-people-we-dont-who-include-the-judges.html

    Sweet that now they have their majority back they think parliament has legitimacy again
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,560

    Suella Braverman, three weeks before her appointment as Attorney General:

    Yes, courts should operate to curb abuse of power by government but if a small number of unelected, unaccountable judges continue to determine wider public policy, putting them at odds with elected decision-makers, our democracy cannot be said to be representative. Parliament’s legitimacy is unrivalled and the reason why we must take back control, not just from the EU, but from the judiciary.
    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/suella-braverman-people-we-elect-must-take-back-control-from-people-we-dont-who-include-the-judges.html

    Sweet that now they have their majority back they think parliament has legitimacy again
    “Unrivalled” is a curious choice of words.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,420
    Bernie could win, if he would just moderate a couple of his policies.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228843657039577088
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247

    On social media, there seem to be a lot of complaints that criminals convicted of offences, especially the industrial-scale rape of girls up north, keep their anonymity. Of course, this is because they face other charges that will be tried separately but it may be that the appalling 1-2 year delays in getting to court are a large part of the problem. Delays due to government cuts have undermined public confidence in the courts generally, as well as destroying any deterrent effect. Commit crime, get caught, and nothing happens for months on end.

    There’s also the converse, let’s call it the Cliff Richard, where high profile investigations are initiated (and communicated to the public), yet people are left for years in some cases not knowing if they face serious charges.

    Meanwhile we have police time being wasted on ‘non-crime’ Twitter spats and 10% of all magistrates’ court cases Involve TV licences.

    The net result is a loss of public trust in the whole system.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,595
    That last paragraph:

    :lol:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,641
    I knew this was Cyclefree before I got to the bottom by the length 😉

    Think I need a coffee before I tackle this one..
  • Judges interpret the law but Parliament sets the law. If the government is unhappy with the way the law is being interpreted they can change it.
  • Judges interpret the law but Parliament sets the law. If the government is unhappy with the way the law is being interpreted they can change it.

    Judges make law in the absence of parliament. Common law.
  • northernpowerhouse2northernpowerhouse2 Posts: 190
    edited February 16

    On social media, there seem to be a lot of complaints that criminals convicted of offences, especially the industrial-scale rape of girls up north, keep their anonymity. Of course, this is because they face other charges that will be tried separately but it may be that the appalling 1-2 year delays in getting to court are a large part of the problem. Delays due to government cuts have undermined public confidence in the courts generally, as well as destroying any deterrent effect. Commit crime, get caught, and nothing happens for months on end.

    Of course, this government’s cuts forced those social workers and police authorities to ignore the systemic rape of young white girls for over thirty years. Because they were white and the perpetuators were a ‘protected minority’.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247

    I knew this was Cyclefree before I got to the bottom by the length 😉

    Think I need a coffee before I tackle this one..

    You mean the bottom of the first paragraph?

    It’s a good piece, as usual by Ms @Cyclefree, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

    I think the general public have lost confidence that the justice system is fair, and think the balance of ‘human rights’ legislation cares more about the rights of perpetrators than victims of crime. They also don’t understand why foreigners sent to prison don’t go straight from there to the airport, as happens in most other countries.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    Coronavirus looks to be spreading within Japan, among people who haven’t been to China. Very worrying for them if this continues.

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/15/national/eight-coronavirus-infections-confirmed-tokyo-japan-sees-spate-domestic-transmissions/#.XkjYThpRWhA

    Nowhere else can contain people the way the Chinese have done, if the virus is now spreading rapidly outside of China then it could be too late already to prevent a worldwide pandemic, given the incubation time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,641
    I think what's at the heart of this is the Human Rights Act and the applicability through that of ECHR appeals in the UK.

    This particularly applies to immigration and repatriation. For example, the average person thinks it's madness that once someone sets foot on British soil and claims asylum (often quite deliberately with no documents) they're basically home and dry. It's very hard to deport them and a very large number of these claims succeed. And for those that look like they won't many abscond.

    They succeed because they either have good enough grounds for it (there are plenty of unpleasant and intolerant places in the world) or because the onus is on the law to prove where they are from and that the place they are sent back to is safe to be deported to.

    The result (because, quite rightly, we can't let people drown or die) is that there is a taxi service operating in the English Channel as well as the Med now where if you make it 50%+ one yard across the halfway line then the Royal Navy or coastguard will transit you to Blighty. The BBC often reports this as "Twenty eight migrants including children" and when you read it you see it's just two children and two women and the rest are young healthy men.

    There is something seriously wrong with our asylum, immigration and rights system. It encourages people trafficking and for the healthiest and wealthiest with means (young men) to get here at great risk to themselves whilst the most vulnerable and (legitimately) needy are stranded at home. I don't blame them. They want a better life. And in their shoes, wouldn't you risk it too? The rewards are immense. But it is conniving, disingenuous, unfair and aiding a vast international criminal enterprise.

    A far better solution would be for the UK to set an annual quota of refugees from disaster or conflict areas it is willing to admit and set up an application and appeals station near those zones, or at our embassies. Genuine asylum seekers can then be assessed, given protection and transited here.

    By the same token - by law - not a single transit of the English channel can ever succeed. That's the only way to stop them. All crossings should be intercepted and all occupants always returned to their port of origin (they've always come from a safe country in Europe too) and told to properly apply by the usual process if they wish to be considered for asylum in the UK.
  • On social media, there seem to be a lot of complaints that criminals convicted of offences, especially the industrial-scale rape of girls up north, keep their anonymity. Of course, this is because they face other charges that will be tried separately but it may be that the appalling 1-2 year delays in getting to court are a large part of the problem. Delays due to government cuts have undermined public confidence in the courts generally, as well as destroying any deterrent effect. Commit crime, get caught, and nothing happens for months on end.

    Of course, this government’s cuts forced those social workers and police authorities to ignore the systemic rape of young white girls for over thirty years. Because they were white and the perpetuators were a ‘protected minority’.
    Whataboutery does not help.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Good morning, everyone.

    Getting tired of storms.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,234

    Good morning, everyone.

    Getting tired of storms.

    jeez .. a bit of wind and snow and people get fed up!!.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247

    Good morning, everyone.

    Getting tired of storms.

    On the positive side, only four weeks until the first F1 race of the season!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Root, I have enough insomnia without the weather keeping me awake as well.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,029
    The key point about this article is why it needs to be written. Trust in the UK government to obey the law should be a given, but it isn’t with this lot.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,926
    Mr. Jonathan, it wouldn't be with the likes of Corbyn either.

    A problem for the judiciary is that the hubris of Hale in getting carried away with her 'Spiderwoman takes down the Hulk nonsense' makes her, and her judgement, appear less than objective, giving some cover to the Government.

    The lack of judgement and total self-interest of the PM means he'll probably be unrestrained by obstacles such as foresight or insight when it comes to decision-making on this. And everything else.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 1,046
    edited February 16
    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951
    edited February 16
    Really interesting article @Cyclefree thank you. Really good for my Public Law revision too!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498

    Judges interpret the law but Parliament sets the law. If the government is unhappy with the way the law is being interpreted they can change it.

    Judges make law in the absence of parliament. Common law.
    Surely that is amongst the oldest of British constitutional traditions, something one would expect Brexiteers to support.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498
    It does seem as if the AG is a member of a sect with it's own history of systemic sexual abuse:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951

    Mr. Jonathan, it wouldn't be with the likes of Corbyn either.

    A problem for the judiciary is that the hubris of Hale in getting carried away with her 'Spiderwoman takes down the Hulk nonsense' makes her, and her judgement, appear less than objective, giving some cover to the Government.

    The lack of judgement and total self-interest of the PM means he'll probably be unrestrained by obstacles such as foresight or insight when it comes to decision-making on this. And everything else.

    The ruling was unanimous though. There was no dissenting judgments at all. This was not a case of ‘liberal judges vs conservative judges’.

    Something the likes of @HYUFD do not appreciate.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,157
    Good article. On my to-do list is a companion piece explaining why this government initiative will fail.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951
    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 1,046
    Foxy said:

    It does seem as if the AG is a member of a sect with it's own history of systemic sexual abuse:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect

    We’ve had catholics in the government before - this smells a bit “brown woman bad”.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 1,046
    edited February 16

    Good article. On my to-do list is a companion piece explaining why this government initiative will fail.

    An article about how something Boris hasn’t done yet will spell his doom ?

    How very novel.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 1,046

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,540
    edited February 16
    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    If you are talking about the "Harry [somebody]" case where the police turned up at his work, it was "debated" extensively on here a couple of days ago.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,157
    TGOHF666 said:

    Good article. On my to-do list is a companion piece explaining why this government initiative will fail.

    An article about how something Boris hasn’t done yet will spell his doom ?

    How very novel.
    It won’t spell his doom. Failure might even be convenient for him.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 1,046

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    If you are talking about the "Harry [somebody]" case where the police turned up at his work, it was "debated" extensively on here a couple of days ago.
    Not in this header on judges. On a site about betting.

    Spurs Villa the draw at 14/5 worth a consideration.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,156
    If they're travelling by coach that's probably right. The trains will be a total disaster today.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,157

    If they're travelling by coach that's probably right. The trains will be a total disaster today.
    The NCP at Finsbury Square and the 43 bus would be my suggestion.
  • Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,156

    Good morning, everyone.

    Getting tired of storms.

    jeez .. a bit of wind and snow and people get fed up!!.
    It is something of a nuisance when you have stuff to do and you are obliged to walk everywhere though. Car ownership may be ruinously expensive but it does have its compensations...
  • Judges interpret the law but Parliament sets the law. If the government is unhappy with the way the law is being interpreted they can change it.

    Judges make law in the absence of parliament. Common law.
    If Parliament is unhappy with Common Law then Parliament can pass a law to change it.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,029

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
  • Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247
    TGOHF666 said:
    I’m sure all the former Labour MPs who just lost their jobs would agree wholeheartedly that they were right, and the electorate were wrong!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732

    Judges interpret the law but Parliament sets the law. If the government is unhappy with the way the law is being interpreted they can change it.

    Judges make law in the absence of parliament. Common law.
    If Parliament is unhappy with Common Law then Parliament can pass a law to change it.
    Indeed, statute law is supreme and statute can be passed or amended in response to a judicial review if the Government has a majority for it and still wants to get its way
  • Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732

    Mr. Jonathan, it wouldn't be with the likes of Corbyn either.

    A problem for the judiciary is that the hubris of Hale in getting carried away with her 'Spiderwoman takes down the Hulk nonsense' makes her, and her judgement, appear less than objective, giving some cover to the Government.

    The lack of judgement and total self-interest of the PM means he'll probably be unrestrained by obstacles such as foresight or insight when it comes to decision-making on this. And everything else.

    The ruling was unanimous though. There was no dissenting judgments at all. This was not a case of ‘liberal judges vs conservative judges’.

    Something the likes of @HYUFD do not appreciate.
    There are no conservative judges as such, certainly in the US sense, on the Supreme Court
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,029

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    That option was not available to Labour, and it remains to be seen whether ‘get Brexit done’ is the best policy for the country.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,156
    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    I'm working on the assumption at the moment that Labour members think the electorate (most of whom they regard as malign or stupid) will come to see Brexit as a disaster during the next few years, and that Starmer can then go into the election and win a triumph on a far-left manifesto that includes a promise to rejoin.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    I'm working on the assumption at the moment that Labour members think the electorate (most of whom they regard as malign or stupid) will come to see Brexit as a disaster during the next few years, and that Starmer can then go into the election and win a triumph on a far-left manifesto that includes a promise to rejoin.
    Starmer is not going to commit to rejoin, certainly unless there is big public support for that but he will certainly take us back into the single market if he becomes PM given he is already committed to free movement and full alignment with the single market
  • Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality

    The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.

    Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.

    I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    I'm working on the assumption at the moment that Labour members think the electorate (most of whom they regard as malign or stupid) will come to see Brexit as a disaster during the next few years, and that Starmer can then go into the election and win a triumph on a far-left manifesto that includes a promise to rejoin.
    Starmer has ruled out Rejoin.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    TGOHF666 said:

    As a Leave voter who rejoined Labour in December 2019, I am not interested in mulling over the history of the past few years. Brexit is done and the issues in play in 2024 will be very different.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,247

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    I'm working on the assumption at the moment that Labour members think the electorate (most of whom they regard as malign or stupid) will come to see Brexit as a disaster during the next few years, and that Starmer can then go into the election and win a triumph on a far-left manifesto that includes a promise to rejoin.
    Rejoin is a very different prospect to remain though. It will mean undoing any trade agreements and regulatory divergence enacted between now and the next election, and signing up to the Euro and Shengen agreements - assuming the EU Members are even interested in letting us back in! The current government’s plan to diverse as much as possible from EU regulations makes rejoining much harder in practice.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498
    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,039

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
  • tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
    And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.

    The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
  • Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    Why go on twitter in the first place. Keep well away and ignore
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498

    Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality

    The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.

    Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.

    I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year

    Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.

  • Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    That is a pretty big difference though.

    I don’t think it made a difference to the overall result in the end: Corbyn was too toxic. I do think it increased the Tory majority pretty significantly.
  • Foxy said:

    Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality

    The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.

    Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.

    I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year

    Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.

    Idiotic nonsense and is beyond contempt
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    Why go on twitter in the first place. Keep well away and ignore
    Social Media is how the modern world lives, particularly in politics, and media.

    We have yet to come to terms with its implications, and formulate appropriate etiquette and barriers, but we cannot un invent it.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    Why go on twitter in the first place. Keep well away and ignore
    Social Media is how the modern world lives, particularly in politics, and media.

    We have yet to come to terms with its implications, and formulate appropriate etiquette and barriers, but we cannot un invent it.
    I agree but using it is a choice. I do not use it
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,498

    Foxy said:

    Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality

    The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.

    Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.

    I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year

    Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.

    Idiotic nonsense and is beyond contempt
    The man is now a SPAD at number 10, and yes I agree he spouts idiotic nonsense.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
    And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.

    The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
    There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.

    The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,793
    Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.

    Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.

    The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.

    I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.

    For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    Why go on twitter in the first place. Keep well away and ignore
    Social Media is how the modern world lives, particularly in politics, and media.

    We have yet to come to terms with its implications, and formulate appropriate etiquette and barriers, but we cannot un invent it.
    I wonder what the effect of a 1p a Tweet tax would be...
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,234
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    Why go on twitter in the first place. Keep well away and ignore
    Social Media is how the modern world lives, particularly in politics, and media.

    We have yet to come to terms with its implications, and formulate appropriate etiquette and barriers, but we cannot un invent it.
    Perhaps we should restrict twitter users to 20 words a day...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,951

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    That is a pretty big difference though.

    I don’t think it made a difference to the overall result in the end: Corbyn was too toxic. I do think it increased the Tory majority pretty significantly.
    Like I say, there was realistically no other option. Either lose votes to Boris, who likely would have gone anyway regardless of the 2nd ref pledge, or lose them to the Lib Dems.

    Who would have actually believed Labour wanted to implement Brexit, even without the 2nd ref pledge?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,315
    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,590
    Yada yada yada, all very sensible and judicious, lots of fine words and nicely structured argument, but the Header writer really ought to stop the incessant moaning and get with the program. "Boris" has a stonking great mandate from The People to Get Shit Done and neither he nor them People - the real people, that is, not all those non-people who won't put shoulders to the wheel and get behind this great nation of ours - neither "Boris" nor his People want to be poncing around having to explain themselves to quisling cock-blocking Judges and the like.
  • tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
    And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.

    The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
    There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.

    The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
    There was no need to get involved with supporting a second referendum and it was a very large factor in the election, though of course Corbyn was as well
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,157
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
  • tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
    And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.

    The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
    There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.

    The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
    You say that like it’s a bad thing.
    😀
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality

    The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.

    Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.

    I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year

    Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.

    Idiotic nonsense and is beyond contempt
    The man is now a SPAD at number 10, and yes I agree he spouts idiotic nonsense.

    Lets hope he gets his P45
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,234

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
    that's the sort of excuse a bully uses when called out on their behaviour.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 31,558
    edited February 16
    nico67 said:

    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.

    Just like that. Labour majority nailed on then
  • tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
    And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.

    The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
    There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.

    The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
    Like they did in 2017?

    The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,102
    Sandpit said:

    I knew this was Cyclefree before I got to the bottom by the length 😉

    Think I need a coffee before I tackle this one..

    You mean the bottom of the first paragraph?

    It’s a good piece, as usual by Ms @Cyclefree, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

    I think the general public have lost confidence that the justice system is fair, and think the balance of ‘human rights’ legislation cares more about the rights of perpetrators than victims of crime. They also don’t understand why foreigners sent to prison don’t go straight from there to the airport, as happens in most other countries.
    Three points:

    1. Many human rights cases are brought by people who are not criminals but by the forgotten and unloved, such as the case being brought by those with learning disabilities who are treated appallingly. They do not get much attention. So it is easy for you to say “oh the public is fed up with criminals taking the piss”. The reality is that the majority are not criminals taking the piss but people who are desperate and resorting to the courts because it is their last resort.

    2. Even criminals should have resort to the law. This may be unpopular but in a civilised society it is essential. Now there are certainly improvements which can be made in stopping endless hopeless appeals etc but the reason I quoted the figures for 2018 is to show that the overwhelming majority of claims for JR are turned down. Hence my question as to whether there is a real problem here.

    2. The public has lost trust in the police and the criminal justice system. See here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/failing-police-rumbled-by-weary-public-7lwvxrdr6. But that is as a result of prolonged and significant under-investment in and cuts to all aspects of the criminal justice system: police, courts, legal aid, forensic services, prisons, probation services etc. One recent example: an incident of alleged GBH in October 2017 is not going to go to trial until spring 2021.

    Address these issues and the issues I have identified in relation to the police (see here -https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/j) and you would do far more to improve our justice system and start the process of restoring trust than attacking the ability of the citizen to hold the government to account via judicial review.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,157

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
    that's the sort of excuse a bully uses when called out on their behaviour.
    Exactly one person complained about his tweets. They were not aimed at any one person in particular or even the transgender community. The judge described the complainer’s reaction as being at times at the outer margins of rationality.

    This is a world away from a hate mob or bullying.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,639

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election

    Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
    Get Brexit Done walked all over it
    No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
    It was in 2017...
    No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.

    Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
    “Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
    And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.

    The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
    There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.

    The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
    There was no need to get involved with supporting a second referendum and it was a very large factor in the election, though of course Corbyn was as well
    I think Gallowgate has already answered that. The substantive point, though, is that the last thing a Starmer-led Labour party will be doing is replaying last year's debates about Brexit. He'll focus on holding the government to account for what it's doing now - and having been given a free ride for the last 5 years, the Tories are going to have brace themselves for that.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,157
    DavidL said:

    Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.

    Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.

    The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.

    I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.

    For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.

    The solution to a problem of systematic bad decision-making is not preventing the review of those decisions.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,315

    nico67 said:

    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.

    Just like that. Labour majority nailed on then
    Did I say they would win the next election ? Of the choices on offer KS is miles ahead in terms of leadership and looking the part.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    edited February 16

    nico67 said:

    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.

    Just like that. Labour majority nailed on then
    Starmer won't get a majority, he might be able to do a deal with the LDs though as Cameron did in 2010 if Labour and the LDs gain enough Tory seats
  • Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
    that's the sort of excuse a bully uses when called out on their behaviour.
    Exactly one person complained about his tweets. They were not aimed at any one person in particular or even the transgender community. The judge described the complainer’s reaction as being at times at the outer margins of rationality.

    This is a world away from a hate mob or bullying.
    The Twitter hate mobs descending upon people tend to come from the left of politics, but can come from across the spectrum. Mobs of people descending upon someone for saying the 'wrong' thing and calling for them to lose their jobs etc for some reason don't seem to view their own actions as bullying.
  • Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
    that's the sort of excuse a bully uses when called out on their behaviour.
    So it’s good that the police were told to stop doing it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,590
    edited February 16
    nico67 said:

    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.

    This is right. The election was won by Johnson with Get Brexit Done. It appealed to both Leavers and the many unaligned people who were fed up with the impasse. Plus Johnson himself has strong appeal to the particular voters he needed for his big win. WWC leavers. The GE with that timing and that framing was unwinnable for Labour. If they had stayed as a Leave party they would have lost less and fewer Red Wall seats but would have risked a mass defection to the LDs in Remain areas, which could have been much worse for them. Their Brexit policy was, as you say, the least bad one available. What then turned a 30 seat Con win into an 80 seat Con win was the unpopularity and divisiveness of Jeremy Corbyn.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,994

    If they're travelling by coach that's probably right. The trains will be a total disaster today.
    There are some here at the Woodall services
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,872

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality

    The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.

    Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.

    I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year

    Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.

    Idiotic nonsense and is beyond contempt
    The man is now a SPAD at number 10, and yes I agree he spouts idiotic nonsense.

    Lets hope he gets his P45
    He's at No 10, not No 11.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,315
    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.

    This is right. The election was won by Johnson with Get Brexit Done. It appealed to both Leavers and the many unaligned people who were fed up with the impasse. Plus Johnson himself has strong appeal to the particular voters he needed for his big win. WWC leavers. The GE with that timing and that framing was unwinnable for Labour. If they had stayed as a Leave party they would have lost less and fewer Red Wall seats but would have risked a mass defection to the LDs in Remain areas which could have been much worse for them. Their Brexit policy was, as you say, the least bad one available. What then turned a 30 seat loss into an 80 seat loss was the unpopularity and divisiveness of their leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
    Excellent post . You’ve summed it up perfectly .
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,234

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    No mention of the very sensible judge who this week told the police to stop wasting time on non woke Twitter non crimes as we don’t have a “Stasi” ?

    Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.

    Are you suggesting judges should ignore acts of Parliament? Surely not?

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
    The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
    Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.

    One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
    that's the sort of excuse a bully uses when called out on their behaviour.
    So it’s good that the police were told to stop doing it.
    tres drole, but the point remains valid.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,039
    It’s a real shame that Long Bailey isn’t going to win. Five years of her talking about trans rights could kill off the Labour Party.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,793

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.

    Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.

    The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.

    I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.

    For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.

    The solution to a problem of systematic bad decision-making is not preventing the review of those decisions.
    I agree but we need to look at the decisions, not the process. And we need to reduce the number of decisions to some manageable level.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,472

    nico67 said:

    Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .

    The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !

    The fence sitting was the only option .

    And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.

    Just like that. Labour majority nailed on then
    Wishful thinking I am afraid. Boris is here until he retires on his 85th birthday.
This discussion has been closed.