Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
I think given that the HS has demanded an explanation from Cressida Dick, you can take it that it was pretty bad. It's been condemned pretty much across the political spectrum.ballysmate said:
Tbh I don't find the proposals frightening at all.shortfall said:
I seem to remember saying that we were in danger of sliding into a police state or that the police were acting as though we were, not that we were actually in a police state just yet. But in any case, if you're happy with the way things are headed then perhaps you can justify the Rozzers man handling a group of women who were peacefully protesting about male violence and attitudes against women? Or care to comment on the frightening proposed laws highlighted by Kingston Graham earlier that give them even more sweeping power to ban protest and fine and punish demonstrators?Pross said:So basically it was as I said at the time when you were calling it a police state - anyone feeling the laws have been incorrectly applied can appeal to the independent judiciary in the country and have it rectified. So we're agreeing it is nothing like a police state?
As I posted upthread I can see a reason for the removal of the restrictions for criminal damage <5k.
As I said in the intrigue thread, I am OK with people being held responsible if they do harm to the public.
We are nowhere near a police state.
Regarding yesterday's demo, I haven't seen the footage so can't comment. </p>1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Shouldn’t the first port of call for examining new laws is whether what’s ostensibly being legislated for is already covered by existing laws?
0 -
Whilst I can see appeal in this idea, it re-affirms the two tier scenario where the wealthy can act with impunity but the poor can't.ballysmate said:
Is that addressed to me re the crim dam. If so, from above.kingstongraham said:What problem is it solving?
On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.
Community service seems more appropriate.0 -
I imagine Christopher Chope will be all over this.rick_chasey said:Shouldn’t the first port of call for examining new laws is whether what’s ostensibly being legislated for is already covered by existing laws?
Or not.0 -
So currently, the max penalty for criminal damage causing less than £5,000 damage is 3 months and/or up to a £2,500 fine. If this goes through, this will be increased to 10 years.
So damaging a bunch of flowers on a war memorial, or (by the way it's worded) any graffiti on any building that is named after a person.
I would agree these are unpleasant things to do, but 3 months max seems adequate.0 -
So I say this because usually laws that are supposed to cover obviously bad things, but actually those bad things are already covered, usually are actually doing something entirely different...rick_chasey said:Shouldn’t the first port of call for examining new laws is whether what’s ostensibly being legislated for is already covered by existing laws?
0 -
Saw a post from the secret barrister on twitter this morning about the clamour around increased sentencing being the answer to everything. The current delay on a domestic violence court case which he is involved in is 3 years.kingstongraham said:So currently, the max penalty for criminal damage causing less than £5,000 damage is 3 months and/or up to a £2,500 fine. If this goes through, this will be increased to 10 years.
So damaging a bunch of flowers on a war memorial, or (by the way it's worded) any graffiti on any building that is named after a person.
I would agree these are unpleasant things to do, but 3 months max seems adequate.
3 years.
The government could do worse than starting off by looking at these delays, rather than just thinking that longer sentences are the answer to anything. But that's a difficult problem and doesn't generate great headlines about punishing Anti Racists and Environmentalists.0 -
The judge is hardly likely to impose the maximum penalty for the scenarios in your second para though.kingstongraham said:So currently, the max penalty for criminal damage causing less than £5,000 damage is 3 months and/or up to a £2,500 fine. If this goes through, this will be increased to 10 years.
So damaging a bunch of flowers on a war memorial, or (by the way it's worded) any graffiti on any building that is named after a person.
I would agree these are unpleasant things to do, but 3 months max seems adequate.
I'm not saying that I agree one way or the other with the proposed changes though, but it's not really fair to suggest that minor offences will be given the maximum sanction.
1 -
Double post
0 -
This is on top of the erosion of legal aid too.morstar said:
Whilst I can see appeal in this idea, it re-affirms the two tier scenario where the wealthy can act with impunity but the poor can't.ballysmate said:
Is that addressed to me re the crim dam. If so, from above.kingstongraham said:What problem is it solving?
On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.
Community service seems more appropriate.0 -
Agree totally. The time so many cases take to get to court generally is ridiculous.Jezyboy said:
Saw a post from the secret barrister on twitter this morning about the clamour around increased sentencing being the answer to everything. The current delay on a domestic violence court case which he is involved in is 3 years.kingstongraham said:So currently, the max penalty for criminal damage causing less than £5,000 damage is 3 months and/or up to a £2,500 fine. If this goes through, this will be increased to 10 years.
So damaging a bunch of flowers on a war memorial, or (by the way it's worded) any graffiti on any building that is named after a person.
I would agree these are unpleasant things to do, but 3 months max seems adequate.
3 years.
The government could do worse than starting off by looking at these delays, rather than just thinking that longer sentences are the answer to anything. But that's a difficult problem and doesn't generate great headlines about punishing Anti Racists and Environmentalists.0 -
Didn't the Justice minister admit live on air earlier in the week that increased sentencing has absolutely no effect as a crime deterrent, but rather that the likelihood of detection and charging does?0
-
Isn't that just because they put the horse before the cart?elbowloh said:Didn't the Justice minister admit live on air earlier in the week that increased sentencing has absolutely no effect as a crime deterrent, but rather that the likelihood of detection and charging does?
You can't do time if you're not detected.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Indeed. Police numbers are down and people don't even bother reporting crimes because the police tell them they're basically not going to be investigated. People only report burglaries to get a crime number for insurance purposes, not because anyone will be caught. These are cases where people's homes are invaded and their most treasured possessions taken, but damage a statue and suddenly the levers of Parliament are pulled. It's f#cking pathetic to be honest.pblakeney said:
Isn't that just because they put the horse before the cart?elbowloh said:Didn't the Justice minister admit live on air earlier in the week that increased sentencing has absolutely no effect as a crime deterrent, but rather that the likelihood of detection and charging does?
You can't do time if you're not detected.1 -
morstar said:
Whilst I can see appeal in this idea, it re-affirms the two tier scenario where the wealthy can act with impunity but the poor can't.ballysmate said:
Is that addressed to me re the crim dam. If so, from above.kingstongraham said:What problem is it solving?
On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.
Community service seems more appropriate.
Regardless of whether this ammendment to Crim Dam Act is necessary, it actually suggests the opposite.
Previously some affluent person with an aerosol could commit damage up to 5 grand, knowing he could easily pay the fine. That privilege could now be removed.
But there again, as I said in the other thread, there is a maximum punishment stipulated but not a mandatory one so I don't expect much to change.
As I said Initially, I thought the existing law had it covered.
0 -
But that doesn't appease the press, the government think they have to be seen to do something after a few headlines. Same with that idiot that killed a woman when cycling, there were laws that covered it but they had to make a new one. It's for show rather than actually doing something that's needed.ballysmate said:
As I said Initially, I thought the existing law had it covered.1 -
This. I don't disagree with Shortfall when it comes to concerns about knee jerk legislation creating bad laws. Fortunately, despite the occasional uproar, our judiciary are pretty good at working within the guidelines.veronese68 said:
But that doesn't appease the press, the government think they have to be seen to do something after a few headlines. Same with that idiot that killed a woman when cycling, there were laws that covered it but they had to make a new one. It's for show rather than actually doing something that's needed.ballysmate said:
As I said Initially, I thought the existing law had it covered.
Also, someone above mentioned the lack of resources to catch criminals. There is also a massive backlog in the judicial system and a serious lack of prison space. Community service is no better. My daughter supervises community payback schemes and they are struggling to put on enough places for the criminals to do their hours. Others know the system well enough that they simply don't show up as they know it will take ages for their case to be heard if they get sent back to Court and there's a chance it will simply get timed out.
You can have all the tough laws in the world but with insufficient back up in enforcement and the justice system it is utterly pointless.0 -
Existing law had max 3 months in the slammer.ballysmate said:morstar said:
Whilst I can see appeal in this idea, it re-affirms the two tier scenario where the wealthy can act with impunity but the poor can't.ballysmate said:
Is that addressed to me re the crim dam. If so, from above.kingstongraham said:What problem is it solving?
On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.
Community service seems more appropriate.
Regardless of whether this ammendment to Crim Dam Act is necessary, it actually suggests the opposite.
Previously some affluent person with an aerosol could commit damage up to 5 grand, knowing he could easily pay the fine. That privilege could now be removed.
But there again, as I said in the other thread, there is a maximum punishment stipulated but not a mandatory one so I don't expect much to change.
As I said Initially, I thought the existing law had it covered.0 -
You'd think so wouldn't you - if it's a particular problem it could be addressed by increased policing and prosecution of offenders rather than hitting the odd individual with the kind of punishment you might expect in Putin's Russia.kingstongraham said:So currently, the max penalty for criminal damage causing less than £5,000 damage is 3 months and/or up to a £2,500 fine. If this goes through, this will be increased to 10 years.
So damaging a bunch of flowers on a war memorial, or (by the way it's worded) any graffiti on any building that is named after a person.
I would agree these are unpleasant things to do, but 3 months max seems adequate.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I know, which is why I said I thought it had it covered, although it would be surprising if 3 months was common.kingstongraham said:
Existing law had max 3 months in the slammer.ballysmate said:morstar said:
Whilst I can see appeal in this idea, it re-affirms the two tier scenario where the wealthy can act with impunity but the poor can't.ballysmate said:
Is that addressed to me re the crim dam. If so, from above.kingstongraham said:What problem is it solving?
On reflection, the removal of the restriction could stop crowd funding to pay any fine of an individual who is willing to damage property if they believe they are immune from any consequence.
Community service seems more appropriate.
Regardless of whether this ammendment to Crim Dam Act is necessary, it actually suggests the opposite.
Previously some affluent person with an aerosol could commit damage up to 5 grand, knowing he could easily pay the fine. That privilege could now be removed.
But there again, as I said in the other thread, there is a maximum punishment stipulated but not a mandatory one so I don't expect much to change.
As I said Initially, I thought the existing law had it covered.0 -
Ironic that the for all the 'tough on crime' bluster the current government are the ones who've defunded the police and criminal justice system.Pross said:
This. I don't disagree with Shortfall when it comes to concerns about knee jerk legislation creating bad laws. Fortunately, despite the occasional uproar, our judiciary are pretty good at working within the guidelines.veronese68 said:
But that doesn't appease the press, the government think they have to be seen to do something after a few headlines. Same with that idiot that killed a woman when cycling, there were laws that covered it but they had to make a new one. It's for show rather than actually doing something that's needed.ballysmate said:
As I said Initially, I thought the existing law had it covered.
Also, someone above mentioned the lack of resources to catch criminals. There is also a massive backlog in the judicial system and a serious lack of prison space. Community service is no better. My daughter supervises community payback schemes and they are struggling to put on enough places for the criminals to do their hours. Others know the system well enough that they simply don't show up as they know it will take ages for their case to be heard if they get sent back to Court and there's a chance it will simply get timed out.
You can have all the tough laws in the world but with insufficient back up in enforcement and the justice system it is utterly pointless.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
spoken as taught to history undergrads to give them a spotty real ale kind of intellectual aura.rick_chasey said:
Amazing.Darius_Jedburgh said:You cannot judge the actions of people in history by the standards of today.
You can learn from their mistakes but what is done is done
What is the point of history if it's not the contemporary view of the past?
History is not the same as the past.
1 -
I'm not sure anyone in Bristol particularly cared about the statue to start with, and given his history, probably won't miss him.
I thought it was funny at the time, but shouldn't have been necessary, there's been campaigns to clean up Bristol's act for ages. It was only when a mate pointed out that we had "Blackboy's Hill" and "Whiteladies' Road" and that the city's wealth was based on some slightly dodgy trades, that I really paid attention.
As for the statue nonces...pathetic.
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
really paid attention eh? what exactly is a "statue nonce". is Whiteladys road offensive but the black farmers sausage not?
0 -
I would assume the Tory Councillor who described Colston as a hero could be described as a statue nonce.
Certainly a bit of a jackass.0 -
On most of my cycle trips I pass Blackladies farm and Black Ladies Priory. The priory was founded in the mid 1100s but from now on I shall start taking offence as I pass.
Some racist, as opposed to racing, cyclists have even named a route after the offensive priory.
https://www.routeyou.com/en-gb/route/view/4544362/recreational-cycle-route/enjoy-the-outdoors-black-ladies-priory0 -
It's a reference to the black attire that the local nuns wore.ballysmate said:On most of my cycle trips I pass Blackladies farm and Black Ladies Priory. The priory was founded in the mid 1100s but from now on I shall start taking offence as I pass.
Some racist, as opposed to racing, cyclists have even named a route after the offensive priory.
https://www.routeyou.com/en-gb/route/view/4544362/recreational-cycle-route/enjoy-the-outdoors-black-ladies-priory0 -
No sh!t Sherlock!!rick_chasey said:
It's a reference to the black attire that the local nuns wore.ballysmate said:On most of my cycle trips I pass Blackladies farm and Black Ladies Priory. The priory was founded in the mid 1100s but from now on I shall start taking offence as I pass.
Some racist, as opposed to racing, cyclists have even named a route after the offensive priory.
https://www.routeyou.com/en-gb/route/view/4544362/recreational-cycle-route/enjoy-the-outdoors-black-ladies-priory
0 -
