Scott Benton. A symbol for everything that people despise about politicians.
Only been an MP since 2019. In the short time since, he has:-
1. Accused the National Trust of being "cultured by Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dogma" 2. Been a supporter of SPUC, the virulent anti-abortion, homophobic organisation that campaigns against same-sex marriage. Despite being married to his male Partner 3. Objected to "vexatious and deeply unpleasant" accusations that he failed to declare various financial interests. Made loud noises proclaiming his innocence. Despite that, Parliamentary Commissioner found against him. 4. 1 of 10 MPs caught accepting freebies from betting companies. He received more than anyone else during Euro 2020-£7,500-worth of tickets 5. Unsurprisingly, selected by the Guardian as a man who can be bought by betting companies. Because he can
Scott Benton. A symbol for everything that people despise about politicians.
Only been an MP since 2019. In the short time since, he has:-
1. Accused the National Trust of being "cultured by Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dogma" 2. Been a supporter of SPUC, the virulent anti-abortion, homophobic organisation that campaigns against same-sex marriage. Despite being married to his male Partner 3. Objected to "vexatious and deeply unpleasant" accusations that he failed to declare various financial interests. Made loud noises proclaiming his innocence. Despite that, Parliamentary Commissioner found against him. 4. 1 of 10 MPs caught accepting freebies from betting companies. He received more than anyone else during Euro 2020-£7,500-worth of tickets 5. Unsurprisingly, selected by the Guardian as a man who can be bought by betting companies. Because he can
In relation to the Labour Party's recent advert in relation to Rishi Sunak being soft on crime, particularly in relation to child sex offenders not going to prison.
The first thing to say is that I do not like the advert. In its way, it is no better than the ridiculous Tory accusations that Starmer was personally responsible. It is personalising a systemic problem.
But it is important to set out some of the reasons why conviction rates for sex crimes are so low. For example, in a rape case, there are the following hurdles for a conviction:-
1. The alleged offence; 2. The victim needs to come forward to the Police, normally pretty quickly; 3. The Police need to be able to present the case for a possible prosecution; 4. The CPS need to be satisfied that there is a good chance of a conviction; 5. The Court needs to hear the case; 6. The Jury need to be satisfied that Guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 7. The Judge needs to sentence the Guilty man
There are all sorts of complications in relation to the above. But the particular problems that have arisen in recent years include:-
8. Massive media coverage in relation to perception police are incompetent or worse, particularly in relation to rape victims 9. Considerable Government criticism of the Police 10. Considerable reduction in number, and funding, of Criminal Courts 11. Massive increase in delay in bringing cases to Court. So-for example-the evidence of a Witness as to what happened 6 months ago is always going to be stronger than 3 years ago. Similarly, the impact upon the victim of having the prospect of the Trial hanging over them for years, rather than months, id going to impact on their willingness to step forward
The focus should not be on whether people found Guilty should/should not be going to prison. It should be why so few people are being prosecuted at all. Which is something that has been going wrong before this Government. But has got considerably worse over the last 13 years.
In relation to the Labour Party's recent advert in relation to Rishi Sunak being soft on crime, particularly in relation to child sex offenders not going to prison.
The first thing to say is that I do not like the advert. In its way, it is no better than the ridiculous Tory accusations that Starmer was personally responsible. It is personalising a systemic problem.
But it is important to set out some of the reasons why conviction rates for sex crimes are so low. For example, in a rape case, there are the following hurdles for a conviction:-
1. The alleged offence; 2. The victim needs to come forward to the Police, normally pretty quickly; 3. The Police need to be able to present the case for a possible prosecution; 4. The CPS need to be satisfied that there is a good chance of a conviction; 5. The Court needs to hear the case; 6. The Jury need to be satisfied that Guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 7. The Judge needs to sentence the Guilty man
There are all sorts of complications in relation to the above. But the particular problems that have arisen in recent years include:-
8. Massive media coverage in relation to perception police are incompetent or worse, particularly in relation to rape victims 9. Considerable Government criticism of the Police 10. Considerable reduction in number, and funding, of Criminal Courts 11. Massive increase in delay in bringing cases to Court. So-for example-the evidence of a Witness as to what happened 6 months ago is always going to be stronger than 3 years ago. Similarly, the impact upon the victim of having the prospect of the Trial hanging over them for years, rather than months, id going to impact on their willingness to step forward
The focus should not be on whether people found Guilty should/should not be going to prison. It should be why so few people are being prosecuted at all. Which is something that has been going wrong before this Government. But has got considerably worse over the last 13 years.
Many people have expressed concerns over the ads. I wasnt keen on them. Although Governments are often judged on what they have improved, rather than what they have exacerbated, or ignored. Many aspects of law and order seem to have deteriorated. If you just focused on rape cases, then surely a charge rate of 1.6%, can only be unacceptable. If this cant be improved, then we are in trouble. I cant claim to have any knowledge of how this rate may be improved, but surely the powers that be, do. If not we are in deep trouble. We claim to be world class, or world leaders in lots of different things, when we are clearly not.
In relation to the Labour Party's recent advert in relation to Rishi Sunak being soft on crime, particularly in relation to child sex offenders not going to prison.
The first thing to say is that I do not like the advert. In its way, it is no better than the ridiculous Tory accusations that Starmer was personally responsible. It is personalising a systemic problem.
But it is important to set out some of the reasons why conviction rates for sex crimes are so low. For example, in a rape case, there are the following hurdles for a conviction:-
1. The alleged offence; 2. The victim needs to come forward to the Police, normally pretty quickly; 3. The Police need to be able to present the case for a possible prosecution; 4. The CPS need to be satisfied that there is a good chance of a conviction; 5. The Court needs to hear the case; 6. The Jury need to be satisfied that Guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 7. The Judge needs to sentence the Guilty man
There are all sorts of complications in relation to the above. But the particular problems that have arisen in recent years include:-
8. Massive media coverage in relation to perception police are incompetent or worse, particularly in relation to rape victims 9. Considerable Government criticism of the Police 10. Considerable reduction in number, and funding, of Criminal Courts 11. Massive increase in delay in bringing cases to Court. So-for example-the evidence of a Witness as to what happened 6 months ago is always going to be stronger than 3 years ago. Similarly, the impact upon the victim of having the prospect of the Trial hanging over them for years, rather than months, id going to impact on their willingness to step forward
The focus should not be on whether people found Guilty should/should not be going to prison. It should be why so few people are being prosecuted at all. Which is something that has been going wrong before this Government. But has got considerably worse over the last 13 years.
Labour shadow minister left floundered after tense exchange over attack ads
In relation to the Labour Party's recent advert in relation to Rishi Sunak being soft on crime, particularly in relation to child sex offenders not going to prison.
The first thing to say is that I do not like the advert. In its way, it is no better than the ridiculous Tory accusations that Starmer was personally responsible. It is personalising a systemic problem.
But it is important to set out some of the reasons why conviction rates for sex crimes are so low. For example, in a rape case, there are the following hurdles for a conviction:-
1. The alleged offence; 2. The victim needs to come forward to the Police, normally pretty quickly; 3. The Police need to be able to present the case for a possible prosecution; 4. The CPS need to be satisfied that there is a good chance of a conviction; 5. The Court needs to hear the case; 6. The Jury need to be satisfied that Guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 7. The Judge needs to sentence the Guilty man
There are all sorts of complications in relation to the above. But the particular problems that have arisen in recent years include:-
8. Massive media coverage in relation to perception police are incompetent or worse, particularly in relation to rape victims 9. Considerable Government criticism of the Police 10. Considerable reduction in number, and funding, of Criminal Courts 11. Massive increase in delay in bringing cases to Court. So-for example-the evidence of a Witness as to what happened 6 months ago is always going to be stronger than 3 years ago. Similarly, the impact upon the victim of having the prospect of the Trial hanging over them for years, rather than months, id going to impact on their willingness to step forward
The focus should not be on whether people found Guilty should/should not be going to prison. It should be why so few people are being prosecuted at all. Which is something that has been going wrong before this Government. But has got considerably worse over the last 13 years.
Labour shadow minister left floundered after tense exchange over attack ads
Emily Thornberry. Talks quite a good game. But not the sharpest tool in the box.
The simple answer in relation to whether these sorts of offenders should be imprisoned is, IMHO, this.
Should all such offenders go to prison? No. Should most go to prison? Yes. Does there need to be a good reason not to send an offender to prison? Yes.
Simple example from my former life. Kid had a Party to celebrate his 16th Birthday. At his party, had consensual sex with 1 of his classmates, a 15 year old girl. Her parents were insisting he be prosecuted, as he was of age and their daughter was a Minor. Also insisting he should be put on Sex Offenders Register.
Fail to see what possible benefit would have been in a Prosecution.
In relation to the Labour Party's recent advert in relation to Rishi Sunak being soft on crime, particularly in relation to child sex offenders not going to prison.
The first thing to say is that I do not like the advert. In its way, it is no better than the ridiculous Tory accusations that Starmer was personally responsible. It is personalising a systemic problem.
But it is important to set out some of the reasons why conviction rates for sex crimes are so low. For example, in a rape case, there are the following hurdles for a conviction:-
1. The alleged offence; 2. The victim needs to come forward to the Police, normally pretty quickly; 3. The Police need to be able to present the case for a possible prosecution; 4. The CPS need to be satisfied that there is a good chance of a conviction; 5. The Court needs to hear the case; 6. The Jury need to be satisfied that Guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 7. The Judge needs to sentence the Guilty man
There are all sorts of complications in relation to the above. But the particular problems that have arisen in recent years include:-
8. Massive media coverage in relation to perception police are incompetent or worse, particularly in relation to rape victims 9. Considerable Government criticism of the Police 10. Considerable reduction in number, and funding, of Criminal Courts 11. Massive increase in delay in bringing cases to Court. So-for example-the evidence of a Witness as to what happened 6 months ago is always going to be stronger than 3 years ago. Similarly, the impact upon the victim of having the prospect of the Trial hanging over them for years, rather than months, id going to impact on their willingness to step forward
The focus should not be on whether people found Guilty should/should not be going to prison. It should be why so few people are being prosecuted at all. Which is something that has been going wrong before this Government. But has got considerably worse over the last 13 years.
Labour shadow minister left floundered after tense exchange over attack ads
Emily Thornberry. Talks quite a good game. But not the sharpest tool in the box.
The simple answer in relation to whether these sorts of offenders should be imprisoned is, IMHO, this.
Should all such offenders go to prison? No. Should most go to prison? Yes. Does there need to be a good reason not to send an offender to prison? Yes.
Simple example from my former life. Kid had a Party to celebrate his 16th Birthday. At his party, had consensual sex with 1 of his classmates, a 15 year old girl. Her parents were insisting he be prosecuted, as he was of age and their daughter was a Minor. Also insisting he should be put on Sex Offenders Register.
Fail to see what possible benefit would have been in a Prosecution.
I agree with your opinion on the case you quoted. I would have considered this much more serious, had either the offender been older, the victim been younger, or both. Although I do think that law enforcement based on opinions, rather than the letter of the law, can cause confusion. There was another recent rape case in the press recently. The headlines did not in my opinion reflect the facts of the case. The headline stated that the offender was 21. This was true when he appeared in court but only 17 when committing the offence. He was not jailed, despite objections from prominent members of the legal profession. I understand that this occurred partly due to changes in Scottish law. However, the victim was a vulnerable 13 year old, that had endured abuse over a period of 3 or 4 months, including being forced to perform sex acts, and rape. This abuse surely made people consider his offending in a completely different light. I would not consider this his offending has any similarities between two teenagers engaging in a consensual sex act.
In cases where police can choose to ignore various laws that are broken, then surely we need to change the law.
In England and Wales, rape is a statutory offence created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 20031. Individuals aged 15 or younger are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape2. Statutory rape of a child under the age of 13 is an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment34. For the statutory rape offence of sexual activity with a child under 16, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment if there was penetration, and 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine or both if there was no such penetration3. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaced the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and came into effect in May 20045.
The recent Conservative Governments contain a lot of people with both arrogance & a sense of entitlement that has rarely been seen before.
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
The recent Conservative Governments contain a lot of people with both arrogance & a sense of entitlement that has rarely been seen before.
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
The recent Conservative Governments contain a lot of people with both arrogance & a sense of entitlement that has rarely been seen before.
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
Do you think Suella Braverman will be next?
Almost certainly.
Enormous ego. Tick. Believes any change seeks to impose is automatically the only correct course. Tick. Bully. Tick. Self-important narcissist. Tick. Believes anybody who disagrees with her vision, and dares to have a different vision, is someone to be derided as "activists". Tick.
The only thing she appears not to have is any good qualities whatsoever.
The other difference is that Raab was appointed despite rumours that acted inappropriately.
Whereas Braverman was appointed immediately after she had already resigned as a Minister, having been proved to have broken the Ministerial Code.
The recent Conservative Governments contain a lot of people with both arrogance & a sense of entitlement that has rarely been seen before.
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
Do you think Suella Braverman will be next?
Almost certainly.
Enormous ego. Tick. Believes any change seeks to impose is automatically the only correct course. Tick. Bully. Tick. Self-important narcissist. Tick. Believes anybody who disagrees with her vision, and dares to have a different vision, is someone to be derided as "activists". Tick.
The only thing she appears not to have is any good qualities whatsoever.
The other difference is that Raab was appointed despite rumours that acted inappropriately.
Whereas Braverman was appointed immediately after she had already resigned as a Minister, having been proved to have broken the Ministerial Code.
The recent Conservative Governments contain a lot of people with both arrogance & a sense of entitlement that has rarely been seen before.
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
Andrew Bridgen expelled from Tories for saying jabs one of biggest crimes since Holocaust
The recent Conservative Governments contain a lot of people with both arrogance & a sense of entitlement that has rarely been seen before.
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
Do you think Suella Braverman will be next?
Almost certainly.
Enormous ego. Tick. Believes any change seeks to impose is automatically the only correct course. Tick. Bully. Tick. Self-important narcissist. Tick. Believes anybody who disagrees with her vision, and dares to have a different vision, is someone to be derided as "activists". Tick.
The only thing she appears not to have is any good qualities whatsoever.
The other difference is that Raab was appointed despite rumours that acted inappropriately.
Whereas Braverman was appointed immediately after she had already resigned as a Minister, having been proved to have broken the Ministerial Code.
Suella Braverman claims asylum seekers who come on small boats are drug dealers and traffickers
Comments
Only been an MP since 2019. In the short time since, he has:-
1. Accused the National Trust of being "cultured by Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dogma"
2. Been a supporter of SPUC, the virulent anti-abortion, homophobic organisation that campaigns against same-sex marriage. Despite being married to his male Partner
3. Objected to "vexatious and deeply unpleasant" accusations that he failed to declare various financial interests. Made loud noises proclaiming his innocence. Despite that, Parliamentary Commissioner found against him.
4. 1 of 10 MPs caught accepting freebies from betting companies. He received more than anyone else during Euro 2020-£7,500-worth of tickets
5. Unsurprisingly, selected by the Guardian as a man who can be bought by betting companies. Because he can
The first thing to say is that I do not like the advert. In its way, it is no better than the ridiculous Tory accusations that Starmer was personally responsible. It is personalising a systemic problem.
But it is important to set out some of the reasons why conviction rates for sex crimes are so low. For example, in a rape case, there are the following hurdles for a conviction:-
1. The alleged offence;
2. The victim needs to come forward to the Police, normally pretty quickly;
3. The Police need to be able to present the case for a possible prosecution;
4. The CPS need to be satisfied that there is a good chance of a conviction;
5. The Court needs to hear the case;
6. The Jury need to be satisfied that Guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt;
7. The Judge needs to sentence the Guilty man
There are all sorts of complications in relation to the above. But the particular problems that have arisen in recent years include:-
8. Massive media coverage in relation to perception police are incompetent or worse, particularly in relation to rape victims
9. Considerable Government criticism of the Police
10. Considerable reduction in number, and funding, of Criminal Courts
11. Massive increase in delay in bringing cases to Court. So-for example-the evidence of a Witness as to what happened 6 months ago is always going to be stronger than 3 years ago. Similarly, the impact upon the victim of having the prospect of the Trial hanging over them for years, rather than months, id going to impact on their willingness to step forward
The focus should not be on whether people found Guilty should/should not be going to prison. It should be why so few people are being prosecuted at all. Which is something that has been going wrong before this Government. But has got considerably worse over the last 13 years.
I wasnt keen on them.
Although Governments are often judged on what they have improved, rather than what they have exacerbated, or ignored.
Many aspects of law and order seem to have deteriorated.
If you just focused on rape cases, then surely a charge rate of 1.6%, can only be unacceptable.
If this cant be improved, then we are in trouble.
I cant claim to have any knowledge of how this rate may be improved, but surely the powers that be, do.
If not we are in deep trouble.
We claim to be world class, or world leaders in lots of different things, when we are clearly not.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-shadow-minister-left-floundered-083233731.html
The simple answer in relation to whether these sorts of offenders should be imprisoned is, IMHO, this.
Should all such offenders go to prison? No.
Should most go to prison? Yes.
Does there need to be a good reason not to send an offender to prison? Yes.
Simple example from my former life. Kid had a Party to celebrate his 16th Birthday. At his party, had consensual sex with 1 of his classmates, a 15 year old girl. Her parents were insisting he be prosecuted, as he was of age and their daughter was a Minor. Also insisting he should be put on Sex Offenders Register.
Fail to see what possible benefit would have been in a Prosecution.
I would have considered this much more serious, had either the offender been older, the victim been younger, or both.
Although I do think that law enforcement based on opinions, rather than the letter of the law, can cause confusion.
There was another recent rape case in the press recently.
The headlines did not in my opinion reflect the facts of the case.
The headline stated that the offender was 21.
This was true when he appeared in court but only 17 when committing the offence.
He was not jailed, despite objections from prominent members of the legal profession.
I understand that this occurred partly due to changes in Scottish law.
However, the victim was a vulnerable 13 year old, that had endured abuse over a period of 3 or 4 months, including being forced to perform sex acts, and rape.
This abuse surely made people consider his offending in a completely different light.
I would not consider this his offending has any similarities between two teenagers engaging in a consensual sex act.
In cases where police can choose to ignore various laws that are broken, then surely we need to change the law.
In England and Wales, rape is a statutory offence created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 20031. Individuals aged 15 or younger are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape2. Statutory rape of a child under the age of 13 is an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment34. For the statutory rape offence of sexual activity with a child under 16, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment if there was penetration, and 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine or both if there was no such penetration3. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaced the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and came into effect in May 20045.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ex-minister-matt-hancock-under-investigation-by-house-of-commons-sleaze-watchdog/ar-AA19M6Do?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=31c65a292ed8400c8bb803a32e00c215&ei=16
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/conservative-politician-claims-all-white-men-should-have-black-slaves-in-horrific-racist-rant/ar-AA19LRKf?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=31c65a292ed8400c8bb803a32e00c215&ei=22
Take Dominic Raab as a recent example. I have dealt with a lot of alleged bullying incidents over the years. It is almost always the case that there is no clear evidence either way in such matters. Simply because, if bullying is taking place, the bully does it in such a way that others cannot see it. That is the way the bully operates. Whether it is the accused, or the accuser.
So, in short:-
1. There is no resetting of any so-called bar in relation to allegations of bullying. It is in exactly the same position it has always been
2. You have to have an enormous ego before you can believe that any change you seek to impose is automatically the only correct course. And that anyone who disagrees is an "activist". Here's a thought-is it just possible that people who disagree are just as convinced they are right as Raab?
3. It takes a special type of ar5ehole to say that "I was cleared of all but 2 of the charges". Firstly, he wasn't "cleared", or found not to have done those things-merely that it could not be proved to a more than 50% probability that he had. And secondly-all but 2? 2 were proved. It's like a woman claiming she is "a little bit pregnant"
4. Bullying is not about "intent". It is primarily about the effect it has upon the bullied. The inability to do one's job properly due to fear. The effect on mental health. The inability for balanced debate.
5. His resignation speech showed him for exactly who he is. A self-important narcissist who is only able to see the World as a vessel for the genius that is Raab
6. Finally, Rishi Sunak. Weak. Advised by weak advisers. The day of the report was spent pretending he was digesting the report while persuading Raab to resign. The 2nd hiding from the Public.
Enormous ego. Tick.
Believes any change seeks to impose is automatically the only correct course. Tick.
Bully. Tick.
Self-important narcissist. Tick.
Believes anybody who disagrees with her vision, and dares to have a different vision, is someone to be derided as "activists". Tick.
The only thing she appears not to have is any good qualities whatsoever.
The other difference is that Raab was appointed despite rumours that acted inappropriately.
Whereas Braverman was appointed immediately after she had already resigned as a Minister, having been proved to have broken the Ministerial Code.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/andrew-bridgen-expelled-from-tories-for-saying-jabs-one-of-biggest-crimes-since-holocaust/ar-AA1amZJF?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9909a7d8b44a45ebb98f37a88234cb51&ei=60
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/suella-braverman-says-sudanese-refugees-073302976.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/suella-braverman-rules-introducing-safe-151700001.html