The British Politics Thread

[sledger]

Basically this man got caught because a child phoned the police and there was CCTV footage of what he had done. Would find if his lawyer had managed to suppress the footage then none of this would ever have come to light.

What really pisses me off about the sentencing is that it is implied that this is not the first time police have been called (alcohol fuelled or not) but that somehow he is a man of 'good character' who gives to charities means he gets a light(er) sentence.

Yeah, but tbf a court making sentencing decisions on the basis of implication and inference would be dodgy tstl. Can't start determining punishments on the basis of hearsay and rumour.

 

[StephenZA]

Yeah, but tbf a court making sentencing decisions on the basis of implication and inference would be dodgy tstl. Can't start determining punishments on the basis of hearsay and rumour.

The article implied... the police would know whether they had previous call outs. Of course this comes back to whether this information is legally admissible or relevant but it did seem to come out in the judgement.

 

[GIMH]

Surely if the police were called but no action was taken that can't be used as a sentencing factor?

 

[sledger]

Surely if the police were called but no action was taken that can't be used as a sentencing factor?

Yeah would be totally inappropriate.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Not sure if they read it out to the court but I think they do. It's then factored into the overall sentence.

doesn't seem like it from sledger's point about "not admissible as evidence in trial"

but that does make some kind of sense and also why "the judges may know something you don't" is valid sometimes

 

[GIMH]

In my head if it's read out to the court it's post-verdict. But it might just be that the judge reads through it.

Doesn't have to be the direct victim either. Other 'passive' victims can also provide them.

 

[StephenZA]

doesn't seem like it from sledger's point about "not admissible as evidence in trial"

but that does make some kind of sense and also why "the judges may know something you don't" is valid sometimes

Victim statement is more about the effect (short and long term) the defendants actions had on the victim. Hence only about the sentencing. An official complaint would be more about the details of the assault itself.

 

[sledger]

doesn't seem like it from sledger's point about "not admissible as evidence in trial"

but that does make some kind of sense and also why "the judges may know something you don't" is valid sometimes

Yeah, statements and police interviews etc. are generally not admissible as evidence, if I remember correctly.

 

[sledger]

In my head if it's read out to the court it's post-verdict. But it might just be that the judge reads through it.

Doesn't have to be the direct victim either. Other 'passive' victims can also provide them.

Yeah, this.

 

[StephenZA]

Surely if the police were called but no action was taken that can't be used as a sentencing factor?

Yeah would be totally inappropriate.

I don't disagree with this. But I also don't like that 'good' prejudicial statements that are taken into account. i.e. man gives to charity. You either take all the persons actions into account or only the relevant ones for the cases involved not either/or. I understand it becomes complex both legally and morally. In this particular case I get the feeling that there is much more complex stuff going on behind the scenes that the public is just unaware of.

 

[Furball]

Looks like we've got a potential **** fight brewing between the devolved administrations and Westminster's attempt to trample all over the devolution settlement with their ludicrous UK market policy proposal.

 

[sledger]

I don't disagree with this. But I also don't like that 'good' prejudicial statements that are taken into account. i.e. man gives to charity. You either take all the persons actions into account or only the relevant ones for the cases involved not either/or. I understand it becomes complex both legally and morally. In this particular case I get the feeling that there is much more complex stuff going on behind the scenes that the public is just unaware of.

Yeah, but the difference is that there was substantive evidence of "good character" (i.e. charity work), but there was only implication of "bad character" (i.e. rumours of police being called to his house).

If the evidence of "bad character" was substantive and demonstrable, this would have been taken into account in exactly the same way as the evidence of "good character".

 

[sledger]

Looks like we've got a potential **** fight brewing between the devolved administrations and Westminster's attempt to trample all over the devolution settlement with their ludicrous UK market policy proposal.

It doesn't look like that to anyone actually calling the shots tbh.

 

[Lokomotiv]

Britain needs a written republican constitution.

 

[sledger]

Never going to happen.

 

[Niall]

The element that winds me up is the overlap between ‘we need to stop mass incarceration’ and ‘WTF HOW DID HE NOT GO TO JAIL’.

I get that.

I know someone on twitter who spends a lot of time online demanding that we get rid of prisons, police etc and this morning raging about this chap not getting punished more severely.

"Abolish prisons .....except for wealthy white people" is an "interesting" policy.

 

[NZTailender]

Looks like we've got a potential **** fight brewing between the devolved administrations and Westminster's attempt to trample all over the devolution settlement with their ludicrous UK market policy proposal.

yesssss

 

[Magrat Garlick]

devo max!

 

[Niall]

https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1281266464297816070

Top trolling tbf

 

[TestMatch]

Michael Holding breaks down discussing racism in the UK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrffW5au8lA&feature=youtu.be