Not my Labour party

[belton rover]

Tyke, I completely agree.
I don’t have your, or Billy’s, or many other poster’s expertise on politics, or the passion for a particular party that many do, but I do know how I feel about it.

[SydneyRover]

Attacking the opposition cheaply and crudely is the norm, I’m afraid. Another example of all parties losing their sense of morality for a cheap ‘win’. The tories have been the leaders in this for a long time, probably just because they’ve had a louder voice. I think, as the election grows ever nearer, we’ll see more of this from both parties.
British politics is becoming more and more of a game. Social media is partly to blame - it is just too easy to put whatever you want out there for all to see. Yes, Starmer will probably condemn and have this tweet removed with some sort of mock horror, but it can’t be unseen or unregistered. He will be happy that the seed has been sewn that Sunak might not deal with abusers appropriately, regardless of how it came about.

We have seen more, much more, of this from the tories. But I think Labour are just late to the party. As the election looms ever nearer, gutter politics will increase all round.

Gutter politics for a country in the gutter.

It goes deeper than that Belton in my opinion .

The cheap shot politics is a consequence of neither party having any ideas or vision to take this country forward .

Unless the political system that we've lived under since 1979 changes to work in the interests of everybody and not the 1% and  accepted and adopted by the centre of the Labour Party then gutter politics is the only show in town .

Gutter politics is the tactic that keeps the country divided whilst the interests of the 1% are protected .

Only a left wing government will deliver the change this country desperately needs , only the left have the ideas and political will to change this country for the better .

There is nothing to celebrate or be even remotely enthusiastic about an incoming Labour government , nothing what so ever .

The current Labour Party contains as many dubious characters as any Johnson administration , chancers , liars and self interested .

The status quo will remain because the alternative is the status quo under the present guise that calls itself The Labour Party .

Do you actually vote at every election tyke?

[albie]

Dog whistle politics from the Farage playbook.

What makes it even worse is that it seems Keith was involved in drawing up the guidelines Labour is now aiming at;
https://twitter.com/breadandposes/status/1644129302215024640

As head of the CPS, the DPP is responsible for all decisions signed off under his watch.
That is how the system works.....whether you or I agree with those decisions or not.

[SydneyRover]

I remember you blaming Starmer for not prosecuting savile Albie, you got that wrong are you sure about your facts this time? give us the full print out with all the details of what you are and the tweet suggests.

[drfchound]

I wonder if any of the above posters blamed Starmer with the savile smear?

I didn't.

[drfchound]

I'm glad you asked, yes, if you take hounds view of thing, the leader is responsible, no?

The leader oversees what goes on.
I don't know whether KS has condemned the tweet yet but if he hasnt, he should have done by now.

[albie]

No Syd,

I pointed out that Starmer was not the case officer, but was head of the CPS at the time.
It is always the responsibility of the head of service to sign off on work from the unit under his control.

Not sure what you mean about a "print out".
The minutes are set out in the tweet I posted, have you read them?

[drfchound]

If we get back on topic, I see good in most people till I'm proved wrong, that's why I would back Starmer in this instance on that tweet, my reading of him says he has boundaries where he won't go. My guess is it will be quietly taken down.

Well that’s ok then.
Take it down (having allowed it to be posted) then all is ok.
If that had been in reverse, by the Torys against Starmer, there would be over 100 posts on the thread by now.
Well done bst by the way for calling it out.

Johnson blaming Starmer for Savile not the same kind of thing? **

The Labour Party needs to show they're better than the Tories, not just the same but with a different coloured rosette.

** all the same?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have YOU read them Albie.

Because this looks like yet another case where you instinctively post something because someone reckons it is evidence against Starmer, when examination of the evidence suggests it's nothing of the sort.

As for you bringing up the Savile case again, like I said: gutter politics.

[drfchound]

It wasn't albie who first mentioned Saville on this thread.

[albie]

Billy,

The issue is who has control over the sentencing policy.
The Labour tweet suggests it is a political decision, when in truth it is subject to guidelines set out in the tweet I posted.

Whether or not you agree with the guidelines, there they are.
Surely it is then up to the justice system, having considered the evidence, to make the appropriate sentencing decision.
Grandstanding by politicians is nothing to the point.

As to the Saville issue, other posters raised it, not me.....for clarification, I simply corrected Syd's error about what I said.

Gutter politics is about blaming people for things they had no hand in creating.
If you think that this is "gutter politics", no-one can really help you!

[tyke1962]

Attacking the opposition cheaply and crudely is the norm, I’m afraid. Another example of all parties losing their sense of morality for a cheap ‘win’. The tories have been the leaders in this for a long time, probably just because they’ve had a louder voice. I think, as the election grows ever nearer, we’ll see more of this from both parties.
British politics is becoming more and more of a game. Social media is partly to blame - it is just too easy to put whatever you want out there for all to see. Yes, Starmer will probably condemn and have this tweet removed with some sort of mock horror, but it can’t be unseen or unregistered. He will be happy that the seed has been sewn that Sunak might not deal with abusers appropriately, regardless of how it came about.

We have seen more, much more, of this from the tories. But I think Labour are just late to the party. As the election looms ever nearer, gutter politics will increase all round.

Gutter politics for a country in the gutter.

It goes deeper than that Belton in my opinion .

The cheap shot politics is a consequence of neither party having any ideas or vision to take this country forward .

Unless the political system that we've lived under since 1979 changes to work in the interests of everybody and not the 1% and  accepted and adopted by the centre of the Labour Party then gutter politics is the only show in town .

Gutter politics is the tactic that keeps the country divided whilst the interests of the 1% are protected .

Only a left wing government will deliver the change this country desperately needs , only the left have the ideas and political will to change this country for the better .

There is nothing to celebrate or be even remotely enthusiastic about an incoming Labour government , nothing what so ever .

The current Labour Party contains as many dubious characters as any Johnson administration , chancers , liars and self interested .

The status quo will remain because the alternative is the status quo under the present guise that calls itself The Labour Party .

Do you actually vote at every election tyke?

Why do you ask ?

[tyke1962]

Tyke, I completely agree.
I don’t have your, or Billy’s, or many other poster’s expertise on politics, or the passion for a particular party that many do, but I do know how I feel about it.

I don't actually have any expertise Belton , I left school the year before Thatcher came to power and so I've had a good look throughout my life as to where we've ended up today as a consequence .

The incoming 1997 Labour government could have done anything they wanted with regard to changing this country , whilst I acknowledge they did some good things they didn't cut the neoliberal umbilical chord either and believed in the  free market , an abundance of cheap eastern European Labour and the city of London .

The working class were told by Mandelson that they had no where else to go , what he meant was fuq you but vote for us when we need you to .

From 1997 onwards the Labour vote fell off a cliff and by 2010 they'd sunk to 29% of the vote , only slightly better than Michael Foot in 1983 .

The FPTP system we have in this country never tells the true story , Corbyn's disastrous 2019 defeat attracted 2 million more votes than Brown in 2010 who narrowly lost .

Starmer won't get anywhere near the Corbyn vote either even though he'll likely win .

That's how fecked up this system is and it's deliberately set up this way so as to keep the status quo and the likelihood of significant change a pipe dream .

We've now reached the stage in this country where neither of the two party's are going to be actually considered credible if you look at the actual votes they are likely to attract at the next GE .

This is in essence a race to the bottom .

Even driving change from within the Labour is now off limits given any left wing affiliations will see you thrown out of the party or you won't get selected to stand as an MP as a Labour candidate .

Left wing is so utterly deplorable it attracts more votes than the centre ground .

Work that one out Belton ?

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Billy,

The issue is who has control over the sentencing policy.
The Labour tweet suggests it is a political decision, when in truth it is subject to guidelines set out in the tweet I posted.

Whether or not you agree with the guidelines, there they are.
Surely it is then up to the justice system, having considered the evidence, to make the appropriate sentencing decision.
Grandstanding by politicians is nothing to the point.

As to the Saville issue, other posters raised it, not me.....for clarification, I simply corrected Syd's error about what I said.

Gutter politics is about blaming people for things they had no hand in creating.
If you think that this is "gutter politics", no-one can really help you!

Albie.

The Sentencing Council doesn't work in a vacuum. They operate in a context of Govt legislation deciding what maximum and minimum sentences should be.

If the Govt legislates to fix the minimum sentence for conviction X to be a custodial one, the Sentencing Council has no authority to countermand that.

In that sense, the Labour tweet has a technical validity. If the Govt wants to have a mandatory custodial sentence for any crime, it can legislate to that effect and that would require the SC to impose that.

The fact that Starmer as DPP sat on the Sentencing Council is irrelevant. The moreso because nothing in the tweet you posted said anything about his being involved in determination of the policy of custodial sentences for adults who have sex with children.

None of the above changes by one jot my original opinion that the tweet Labour posted was disgusting and should be withdrawn.

As regards Savile, I assumed that when you posted "As head of the CPS, the DPP is responsible for all decisions signed off under his watch.
That is how the system works." you were referring to the Savile case. That was the standard attack line (from both far right and far left) when that disgusting smear was first raised. If I misjudged your intention, I apologise. Although I'm struggling to see what else you could have been referring to, because it was a total non sequitur from the rest of the discussion.

[DonnyOsmond]

It wasn't albie who first mentioned Saville on this thread.

I did, in response to your whataboutery.

[SydneyRover]

So any that are blaming Starmer for putting out the tweet above, because he is the leader and 'the leader has to take responsibility' has to accept I assume that as leader sunak has to accept responsibility for not prosecuting offenders guilty of child abuse. Does that seem logical at all?

[Branton Red]

So any that are blaming Starmer for putting out the tweet above, because he is the leader and 'the leader has to take responsibility' has to accept I assume that as leader sunak has to accept responsibility for not prosecuting offenders guilty of child abuse. Does that seem logical at all?

No it's not at all logical.

We have an independent judiciary in the UK.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So any that are blaming Starmer for putting out the tweet above, because he is the leader and 'the leader has to take responsibility' has to accept I assume that as leader sunak has to accept responsibility for not prosecuting offenders guilty of child abuse. Does that seem logical at all?

No it's not at all logical.

We have an independent judiciary in the UK.

So you reckon a judge could choose to impose the death penalty or community service on a murderer?

[drfchound]

It wasn't albie who first mentioned Saville on this thread.

I did, in response to your whataboutery.

I see you aren’t saying anything about syds whataboutery below:

So any that are blaming Starmer for putting out the tweet above, because he is the leader and 'the leader has to take responsibility' has to accept I assume that as leader sunak has to accept responsibility for not prosecuting offenders guilty of child abuse. Does that seem logical at all?

[Branton Red]

So any that are blaming Starmer for putting out the tweet above, because he is the leader and 'the leader has to take responsibility' has to accept I assume that as leader sunak has to accept responsibility for not prosecuting offenders guilty of child abuse. Does that seem logical at all?

No it's not at all logical.

We have an independent judiciary in the UK.

So you reckon a judge could choose to impose the death penalty or community service on a murderer?

Do you think that the law in this area is deficient then? And how so? What needs to change in terms of legislation?

If so, given how long it takes to pass an Act of Parliament, how is Rishi Sunak, who has been PM for only a few weeks, personally responsible for this?

And how does that tally with him "not thinking adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison"?

And how is that comparable to Sir Keir Starmer approving, in advance or retrospect, this poster? Which is the comparison Sydney is drawing and you appear to be defending.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Err. I started this thread.

I'm not defending anything that Labour had done on this subject.

I'm merely pointing out that our judiciary is not independent on the issue of sentencing. Parliament has the ultimate authority on that.

Sydney's post is also wrong in saying that the 4500 figure refers to non-prosecutions. It doesn't. It's the number of prosecuted people who weren't imprisoned.

For the record, I suspect that there were very good reasons for those decisions. Technically, a 6th Former having sex with someone who has just finished Year 11 could be classified as an adult sexually abusing a child. But I suspect most of us know of such cases and few of them would pass any sensible definition of "abuse".

Whatever the detail of the decisions, Labour is very, very wrong on several levels to produce and stand by this poster. It doesn't represent how I think a Labour party ought to campaign. 

[normal rules]

Tory sleeze and labour smear.

When/ if labour get power it will be role reversal.

Labour sleeze Tory smear.

[normal rules]

A lot more to This than “jail time” strap lines.
Child abusers go on the sex offenders register for min 10 years.
And they usually have a Sexual Harm Prevention Order attached too.
I reckon many of those convicted of child abuse offences would rather be in prison.
Huge swathes of the uk community do not tolerate them when outed, and the non sexual offending recidivists have a particular hatred for them.

[Branton Red]

Err. I started this thread.

I'm not defending anything that Labour had done on this subject.

I'm merely pointing out that our judiciary is not independent on the issue of sentencing. Parliament has the ultimate authority on that.

Sydney's post is also wrong in saying that the 4500 figure refers to non-prosecutions. It doesn't. It's the number of prosecuted people who weren't imprisoned.

For the record, I suspect that there were very good reasons for those decisions. Technically, a 6th Former having sex with someone who has just finished Year 11 could be classified as an adult sexually abusing a child. But I suspect most of us know of such cases and few of them would pass any sensible definition of "abuse".

Whatever the detail of the decisions, Labour is very, very wrong on several levels to produce and stand by this poster. It doesn't represent how I think a Labour party ought to campaign.

Ah I see you were just being a Nelly know all and deliberately contradictory.

In fact Parliament only provides guidelines on sentencing. Judges have discretion within those guidelines based on circumstances, the impact on the victim and mitigating factors.

The judiciary have independence on sentencing within those guidelines.

If the law is correct and fair (hence my first question in my response) it is not politicians fault if judges become more lenient within these guidelines - though they do have the option to tighten the guidelines or indeed change the law through legislation.

So Sydney - back to my original point - it's not really comparable to making a decision on whether to approve an election poster is it?

[Sprotyrover]

Err. I started this thread.

I'm not defending anything that Labour had done on this subject.

I'm merely pointing out that our judiciary is not independent on the issue of sentencing. Parliament has the ultimate authority on that.

Sydney's post is also wrong in saying that the 4500 figure refers to non-prosecutions. It doesn't. It's the number of prosecuted people who weren't imprisoned.

For the record, I suspect that there were very good reasons for those decisions. Technically, a 6th Former having sex with someone who has just finished Year 11 could be classified as an adult sexually abusing a child. But I suspect most of us know of such cases and few of them would pass any sensible definition of "abuse".

Whatever the detail of the decisions, Labour is very, very wrong on several levels to produce and stand by this poster. It doesn't represent how I think a Labour party ought to campaign. 

Is
Starter sanctioned the add he needs his bumps feeling, if he didn’t he needs to get a grip of things !

[BillyStubbsTears]

Err. I started this thread.

I'm not defending anything that Labour had done on this subject.

I'm merely pointing out that our judiciary is not independent on the issue of sentencing. Parliament has the ultimate authority on that.

Sydney's post is also wrong in saying that the 4500 figure refers to non-prosecutions. It doesn't. It's the number of prosecuted people who weren't imprisoned.

For the record, I suspect that there were very good reasons for those decisions. Technically, a 6th Former having sex with someone who has just finished Year 11 could be classified as an adult sexually abusing a child. But I suspect most of us know of such cases and few of them would pass any sensible definition of "abuse".

Whatever the detail of the decisions, Labour is very, very wrong on several levels to produce and stand by this poster. It doesn't represent how I think a Labour party ought to campaign.

Ah I see you were just being a Nelly know all and deliberately contradictory.

In fact Parliament only provides guidelines on sentencing. Judges have discretion within those guidelines based on circumstances, the impact on the victim and mitigating factors.

The judiciary have independence on sentencing within those guidelines.

If the law is correct and fair (hence my first question in my response) it is not politicians fault if judges become more lenient within these guidelines - though they do have the option to tighten the guidelines or indeed change the law through legislation.

So Sydney - back to my original point - it's not really comparable to making a decision on whether to approve an election poster is it?

Parliament sets both maximum and, frequently, minimum sentences. These aren't guidelines. They are hard boundaries.

[Branton Red]

Err. I started this thread.

I'm not defending anything that Labour had done on this subject.

I'm merely pointing out that our judiciary is not independent on the issue of sentencing. Parliament has the ultimate authority on that.

Sydney's post is also wrong in saying that the 4500 figure refers to non-prosecutions. It doesn't. It's the number of prosecuted people who weren't imprisoned.

For the record, I suspect that there were very good reasons for those decisions. Technically, a 6th Former having sex with someone who has just finished Year 11 could be classified as an adult sexually abusing a child. But I suspect most of us know of such cases and few of them would pass any sensible definition of "abuse".

Whatever the detail of the decisions, Labour is very, very wrong on several levels to produce and stand by this poster. It doesn't represent how I think a Labour party ought to campaign.

Ah I see you were just being a Nelly know all and deliberately contradictory.

In fact Parliament only provides guidelines on sentencing. Judges have discretion within those guidelines based on circumstances, the impact on the victim and mitigating factors.

The judiciary have independence on sentencing within those guidelines.

If the law is correct and fair (hence my first question in my response) it is not politicians fault if judges become more lenient within these guidelines - though they do have the option to tighten the guidelines or indeed change the law through legislation.

So Sydney - back to my original point - it's not really comparable to making a decision on whether to approve an election poster is it?

Parliament sets both maximum and, frequently, minimum sentences. These aren't guidelines. They are hard boundaries.

Correct - these are commonly referred to as 'sentencing guidelines' - judges have discretion (and therefore independence) within these depending on the circumstances of the case. Jeez!

[albie]

Billy,

Yes, the government can produce new guidelines, and they have just done so for certain offences.
That would give a power to judges to act, but it would only result in a different pattern of sentencing if under the current rules judges were unable to impose what they considered a punishment of suitable severity.

Judges retain the right to weight sentencing according to the evidence presented and the sentencing code.
There is no minimum sentence for the offence under discussion.
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/mandatory-minimum-term-sentences

The issue is whether you believe in an independent judiciary. The more prescriptive the political influence, the less autonomy is retained.
It is perfectly reasonable to leave sentencing to the judge who has heard the evidence, rather than a politician who has not.

So the question hinges on whether there is a restriction in place which materially effects outcomes.
Is there a demand from legal professionals to confer additional powers, or is it simply politicians exploiting a none existent demand to pander to populism?

The figure of 4,500 Labour give is from 2010, long before Sunak was an MP, let alone party leader.
There is no explanation of why that number have not been jailed, which is surely needed.

Starmer was fully aware of the timeline, having been part of the 2013 guidance process, and the Labour tweet looks to pin Sunak on something he has not created himself. Labour signed off on an attack ad despite Starmer knowing the guidance predated Sunak in office.

It is perfectly possible for Labour to say we will change the guidelines in office, without the smear alongside, with Sunak's forged signature.
Whether that would be a good thing will be contested by those in the sector.

[Branton Red]

Billy,

Yes, the government can produce new guidelines, and they have just done so for certain offences.
That would give a power to judges to act, but it would only result in a different pattern of sentencing if under the current rules judges were unable to impose what they considered a punishment of suitable severity.

Judges retain the right to weight sentencing according to the evidence presented and the sentencing code.
There is no minimum sentence for the offence under discussion.
https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/mandatory-minimum-term-sentences

The issue is whether you believe in an independent judiciary. The more prescriptive the political influence, the less autonomy is retained.
It is perfectly reasonable to leave sentencing to the judge who has heard the evidence, rather than a politician who has not.

So the question hinges on whether there is a restriction in place which materially effects outcomes.
Is there a demand from legal professionals to confer additional powers, or is it simply politicians exploiting a none existent demand to pander to populism?

The figure of 4,500 Labour give is from 2010, long before Sunak was an MP, let alone party leader.
There is no explanation of why that number have not been jailed, which is surely needed.

Starmer was fully aware of the timeline, having been part of the 2013 guidance process, and the Labour tweet looks to pin Sunak on something he has not created himself. Labour signed off on an attack ad despite Starmer knowing the guidance predated Sunak in office.

It is perfectly possible for Labour to say we will change the guidelines in office, without the smear alongside, with Sunak's forged signature.
Whether that would be a good thing will be contested by those in the sector.

What I was trying to say but much better put and explained.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm struggling to get what people are lecturing me about.

I started this thread precisely because I thought the Labour poster was a disgusting way to play politics.

Albie jumped in to imply that Starmer had responsibility  for the Sentencing decisions.

I pointed out, in response to a factually incorrect claim that the judicial process is independent of political control, that Parliament has the authority to set maximum and minimum sentences.

Albie now rightly and fairly points out that Sunak wasn't even an MP when some of these decisions took place. I agree entirely. And that just re-emphasises my disgust at that poster.