Support NeoGAF

[Meadows]

Not the worst possible, that would be Labour Majority who would then go and overspend/bankrupt the nation just as they did when in power at Westminster.

Even so, Labour have almost got a majority so all opposition MPs would have to band together to stop Labour which is unlikely given the deep seated hatred many of the parties have for each other.

The thing is, and most people forget this, is that if one of the AMs isn't there, they don't vote, so all 30 would have to be there for something to pass (if it was unpopular with other parties), without any being on foreign trips/ill/asleep etc. I suppose that goes for the opposition as well.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Not the worst possible, that would be Labour Majority who would then go and overspend/bankrupt the nation just as they did when in power at Westminster.

.

But this didn't happen.

 

[Sage00]

what happens if voting on a piece of legislation is split 30-30 anyway. does someone get to make a casting vote like in the american senate or is it just considered that the bill isn't passed if it doesn't get a majority.

The Presiding Officer has the deciding vote (and they, historically, always vote against on 50/50 splits).

I'd also like to point out that Wales can possibly take some solace in the SNP minority government for the past 4 years being probably the best government I've ever seen. Everyone worked together in the parliament (except Labour), with the Tories especially asking for some concessions proportional to their representation in return for their full support on an issue-by-issue basis. It actually left me with a lot of respect for the Scottish Lib Dems and, most amazingly, the Scottish Conservatives and is one of the main reasons Labour lost the support of the electorate, because they acted like children and simply voted against all SNP bills (Most obvious was the budget, which Labour said they'd vote against because it didn't have 15,600 new apprenticeships. SNP changed the budget to add 25,000 new apprenticeships. Labour still voted against it). Everything had a fair discussion in the parliament and no one party voted against legislation purely because it was from another party. I'd love to see a Westminster split minority like that one of these days.

If Labour as a whole have learned their lesson from that, it might work out well at the national assembly.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Anyway, I think the most significant news post locals is Nick Clegg threatening to bring down the NHS reforms. Great news for the coalition, it will give the LDs some cheer, and to many Cons who think they are too risky and will doom them at the next election, it will bring them relief. From earlier this year:

Was just catching up on the week's news.

Lansley has to go. The man is complete wanker. Get him out, put Hammond in charge of the DoH, get Huhne to the Transport brief and replace Huhne with pro-nuclear power person as the energy and climate change secretary.

I've been reading up on the health reforms and they are a complete disaster. Lansley went into the election saying no top down reorganisation of the NHS and a year later we are discussing a top down reorganisation of the NHS.

It looks like the rest of the frontbench have noticed that Lansley's NHS reforms are a disaster. I have heard Cameron, Osborne and much of the Tory right want to get rid of Lansley, but don't want the LDs to say 'we saved the NHS from the nasty Tories'. They want it to look like a concerted effort by both sides to fix it, so we will probably hear a lot from Cameron about Lansley needing to look over the reforms and take out the more controversial parts or he will be replaced by someone who will.

The name floated by the Evening Standard was Jeremy Hunt, which would lead to an opening as Culture Sec, Ed Vaizey would be a shoo-in and would be good for us gamers. He has been championing a game developers tax relief to stem the tide of closures and relocations.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

But this didn't happen.

So Labour left behind a £160bn deficit by magic?

Please don't blame the banks/banking. We didn't force Brown to sell the gold, raise hundreds of stealth taxes which dented competitiveness, borrow over £100bn during a boom, break his own 'golden rules' about borrowing for political expediency. The only positive he gave us was not joining the Euro, but that was more about fucking over Tony Blair than good economics.

 

[Meadows]

So Labour left behind a £160bn deficit by magic?

Please don't blame the banks/banking. We didn't force Brown to sell the gold, raise hundreds of stealth taxes which dented competitiveness, borrow over £100bn during a boom, break his own 'golden rules' about borrowing for political expediency. The only positive he gave us was not joining the Euro, but that was more about fucking over Tony Blair than good economics.

Oh yeah, the Euro, man that was a good call not to join.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

So Labour left behind a £160bn deficit by magic?

Please don't blame the banks/banking. We didn't force Brown to sell the gold, raise hundreds of stealth taxes which dented competitiveness, borrow over £100bn during a boom, break his own 'golden rules' about borrowing for political expediency. The only positive he gave us was not joining the Euro, but that was more about fucking over Tony Blair than good economics.

We are a country who economy is heavily reliant on the financial sector( who were at the centre of the global financial crisis, which is unarguable) & had a far larger housing "bubble" than most countries (which was Browns biggest mistake, either he assumed this would continue indefinitely or was unable/unwilling to do anything about it).
Public spending needed to be raised, under-investment had a huge social cost over the last 20-30 years, & the infrastructure of the country was woeful. Also there is nothing really wrong with a government having a deficit(especially as no Government in 200 odd years had had such a period of continued growth), & if the debt was so bad why were the interest rates for said debt so low?
The slashing of the deficit in the manner of the current Government carries a huge danger of a "double dip" recession & is a return to a economic system that has failed in the past & is likely to fail again.

 

[Sage00]

So Labour left behind a £160bn deficit by magic?

Please don't blame the banks/banking. We didn't force Brown to sell the gold, raise hundreds of stealth taxes which dented competitiveness, borrow over £100bn during a boom, break his own 'golden rules' about borrowing for political expediency. The only positive he gave us was not joining the Euro, but that was more about fucking over Tony Blair than good economics.

Oh shut up. We would've went on fine with Gordon Brown's borrowing plans, (Which were completely fair. In building structures like hospitals or schools, which will be used for generations to come, it's only fair that future generations pay for them in part), until you all fucked us over. End of.

Oh yeah, the Euro, man that was a good call not to join.

And the reason for that is that Europe doesn't have enough power, thanks mainly to parties like the Conservatives.

The public has already become tired of the "Oh but Labour fucked everything up" excuse. It's used as a shield for raising tuition fees, deregulating the NHS, decreasing corporation tax, etc etc which are through and through Tory policies which would've been executed regardless of any economic situation.

 

[dalyr95]

Er, the public haven't got tired of the Tories "Labour fucked everything up" message, cause you may have noticed, the Tories gained councillors and councils in last week's election.

Concerning Brown and nearly bankrupting the nation, yes he did. Just look at spending relative to GDP, in a boom 2000-2006, it should drop as a % of GDP, but no, keeps rising.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Er, the public haven't got tired of the Tories "Labour fucked everything up" message, cause you may have noticed, the Tories gained councillors and councils in last week's election.

Concerning Brown and nearly bankrupting the nation, yes he did. Just look at spending relative to GDP, in a boom 2000-2006, it should drop as a % of GDP, but no, keeps rising.

Why should it have dropped during that period, it could be easily argued that the country needed continued investment(also there was a war to pay for, again if he was "bankrupting" the financial sector didn't think so, the interest being charged was pretty low if what you suggest was true.

 

[Meadows]

We've got to remember that Labour did badly everywhere but Wales. It may seem like they did well in England, but all they did was gain back councillors that they lost in 2007/8 council elections (835 councillors lost in the two elections), that, in the context of a Conservative government which is cutting massively is terrible, they should have gained a lot more than they did.

Also, obviously they did terribly in Scotland, mainly due to an appetite for left-wing governance and Salmond's popularity over there.

They did pretty well in Wales, but that was probably because of a fall in the Plaid/LD vote more than anything else.

 

[Speedymanic]

We've got to remember that Labour did badly everywhere but Wales. It may seem like they did well in England, but all they did was gain back councillors that they lost in 2007/8 council elections (835 councillors lost in the two elections), that, in the context of a Conservative government which is cutting massively is terrible, they should have gained a lot more than they did.

Also, obviously they did terribly in Scotland, mainly due to an appetite for left-wing governance and Salmond's popularity over there.

They did pretty well in Wales, but that was probably because of a fall in the Plaid/LD vote more than anything else.

Cuts which have yet to really affect the gen pop. That's when the big drop for Cons will come, I think.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

We've got to remember that Labour did badly everywhere but Wales. It may seem like they did well in England, but all they did was gain back councillors that they lost in 2007/8 council elections (835 councillors lost in the two elections), that, in the context of a Conservative government which is cutting massively is terrible, they should have gained a lot more than they did.
.

The Conservatives are going to win the next election, unless the economy nosedives again. Also the current Government is only a year old the cuts won't have had a actual effect on people yet, if this voting pattern repeats itself in the Euro elections(I think they will occur before the next general election) than Labour will be disappointed(although considering the Tories were unelectable for about 8 years after they lost power, Labour still wouldn't be in that bad shape).

 

[Gowans]

Have you seen how much petrol is CHRIST!

 

[defel]

I dont think the Tory leadership are worried about the inevitable drop in the polls as the government cuts begin to bite. Most Conservatives are relying on being able to ramp up investment and cut taxes at the end of the 5 year term and are hoping that that will see them through the next election.

I'm also very sceptical about the sustainability of Scotland's fiscal stance. Free prescriptions and free tuition fees are obviously the headline social policies that the SNP are promoting but while the rest of the UK goes into a period of fiscal austerity I dont see how the Scottish government are able to afford it. Somewhere in the next few years Scottish voters are going to become less receptive towards the SNP as cuts hit Scotland, the question is whether the SNP can successfully pass the buck on to Westminster or not.

 

[Sage00]

I dont think the Tory leadership are worried about the inevitable drop in the polls as the government cuts begin to bite. Most Conservatives are relying on being able to ramp up investment and cut taxes at the end of the 5 year term and are hoping that that will see them through the next election.

I'm also very sceptical about the sustainability of Scotland's fiscal stance. Free prescriptions and free tuition fees are obviously the headline social policies that the SNP are promoting but while the rest of the UK goes into a period of fiscal austerity I dont see how the Scottish government are able to afford it. Somewhere in the next few years Scottish voters are going to become less receptive towards the SNP as cuts hit Scotland, the question is whether the SNP can successfully pass the buck on to Westminster or not.

They are able to afford it because they can, it's all fully costed. The new prescription policy was paid for and more by a small levy on supermarkets. Scotland is the only part of the UK which reports not only a balanced budget, but a surplus. The £1bn reduction in funds from the UK government this year was met by an reduction of £1.25bn in spending in the SNP's most recent budget.

Now that the SNP have a majority, their other policies like minimum pricing on alcohol should also come into effect and have another boost on revenues given how much excise duty contributes, but it's likely they'll choose to balance it again with a cut in fuel prices.

They're on cruise control, and if full tax raising powers were devolved they'd be able to do even more. Questioning John Swinney's financial sense is paramount to pre-govt-Cable criticism level blasphemy.

 

[Walshicus]

The SNP don't seem to be focused on creating tax loopholes for big companies either, which helps.

 

[DECK'ARD]

The Conservatives are going to win the next election, unless the economy nosedives again. Also the current Government is only a year old the cuts won't have had a actual effect on people yet, if this voting pattern repeats itself in the Euro elections(I think they will occur before the next general election) than Labour will be disappointed(although considering the Tories were unelectable for about 8 years after they lost power, Labour still wouldn't be in that bad shape).

Labour haven't been rendered unelectable as the Tories once were, but I do think people have no enthusiasm for them either. After the Blair/Brown years it's still hard to say what they stand for, New Labour confused the whole message and they were divided. So there's a lack of confidence in them to run things, especially the economy.

Plus Ed Milliband was a terrible choice for leader, he's like a caretaker leader who you'd never expect to be in power anyway. As it stands where there's a credible alternative to Labour as an opposition party, like in Scotland, people will vote for that. Everywhere else they are gaining by default from other parties collapsing. Just having a message of "We're not the Tories" isn't enough.

I agree unless the economy melts down again, the Tories will get a comfortable majority.

 

[Meadows]

New Labour needs to die a painful, quick death. They should, ideology-wise, be my party of choice but I associate them with incompetence, red-tape, health and safety and Iraq. I'm not asking for old Labour, the death of manufacturing makes that impossible, but we need something else, maybe an English version of Plaid Cymru/SNP (obviously minus the independence agenda).

 

[kitch9]

Have you seen how much petrol is CHRIST!

Side effect of low exchange rates which have been fueled by low interest rates.

It would still be over a quid a litre though, even if the economy was more normal.

 

[Walshicus]

New Labour needs to die a painful, quick death. They should, ideology-wise, be my party of choice but I associate them with incompetence, red-tape, health and safety and Iraq. I'm not asking for old Labour, the death of manufacturing makes that impossible, but we need something else, maybe an English version of Plaid Cymru/SNP (obviously minus the independence agenda).

Why? England needs an anti-union party just as much as it needs a viable left-of-centre party.

 

[Meadows]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-13362700

Fucking Swag.

And to Sir Fragula, I think the UK needs a viable centre-left party more than it needs another independence party.

 

[Meadows]

Why did I never know this existed! Marmite did a parody advert of the BNP broadcast last year! It's not brilliant but the concept is amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmqY0qaMGs8 (Original BNP ad)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5GW8uByLc (Marmite ad)

 

[zomgbbqftw]

http://twitter.com/#!/IanIan1984

Since GAF is on a US server they won't have any problems:

IanIan1984 ian sanderson
Racing trainer David Tune has an injunction preventing his wife Vicky Haigh mentioning his sexual abuse of their daughter. #superinjunction
2 hours ago

IanIan1984 ian sanderson
David Schneider faces criminal prosecution over claims he ignored 2 sex workers "safeword" demands to stop whipping them. #superinjunction
2 hours ago

IanIan1984 ian sanderson
Footballer Robbie Keane has injunctions preventing the press from reporting on 3 simultaneous extramarital affairs he had. #superinjunction
2 hours ago

IanIan1984 ian sanderson
Singer Annie Lennox had a lesbian affair with a woman while she was still married to her second husband. #superinjunction
2 hours ago

IanIan1984 ian sanderson
Newcastle United manager Alan Pardew has an injunction stopping press coverage of his visits to several prostitutes. #superinjunction
2 hours ago

IanIan1984 ian sanderson
Chelsea footballer Didier Drogba had a 3 month extramarital affair with 18 year old model Kim West. #superinjunction
2 hours ago

Not sure about the veracity of these, I think the one about David Scheider is true, and the Robbie Keane one could also be true.

 

[Wes]

HOLY SHIT HUGH GRANT ON NEWSNIGHT WAAAAAAAAA

 

[Meadows]

Question Time and thoughts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011cnw4/Question_Time_12_05_2011/

- Another stupid audience, but not as bad as normal
- That journalist (on the left) is an unpleasant person
- Vince Cable doesn't deserve the flak he gets, neither do the Lib Dems
- Blunkett seems like a bit of a nob, keeps doing snide one-liners that don't really do anything
- Anna Soubry seems like a pretty good politician, I actually like her, and she seems like an up-and-comer, much better than other "up-and-comers" like Teresa May
- Max Mosely has a pretty sick rebuttal to one of the journalists' bullshit points "you don't have to join in"

 

[phisheep]

Oh dear, the Earl of Onslow has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13423573

By some way my favourite member of the Lords.

 

[Dark Machine]

- Blunkett seems like a bit of a nob, keeps doing snide one-liners that don't really do anything

And this here is the essence of New Labour. Seriously. That's all they've got left right now. If I were Ed I'd be desperate to get rid of some of the old shite like Blunkett and Straw. Fresh blood is needed, and a solid ideological message that is more toward the left is needed too.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0511.pdf

Unemployment down 36k to 7.7%. Absolute employment up by 118k for the three months ending 31/3/11. In comparison to 31/3/10 there are 416k more people in employment, but the unemployment rate hasn't gone down because people are joining the job market at a similar rate.

Something for the anti-immigration people out there:

The number of UK born people in employment was 25.09 million in the three months to March 2011, up 77,000 on a year earlier. The number of non-UK born people in employment was 4.04 million, up 334,000 from a year earlier

The number of UK nationals in employment was 26.64 million in the three months to March 2011, up 177,000 on a year earlier. The number of non-UK nationals in employment was 2.50 million, up 239,000 from a year earlier.

Decrease in youth unemployment:

There were 935,000 unemployed 16 to 24 year olds in the three months to March 2011, down 30,000 from the three months to December 2010.

The unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year olds not in full-time education was 18.3 per cent, down 1.0 percentage points from the three months to December 2010.

Claimant count up slightly:

The claimant count in April 2011 was 1.47 million, up 12,400 on the previous month but down 46,000 on a year earlier. The claimant count rate was 4.6 per cent, virtually unchanged on the previous month but down 0.1 percentage point from a year earlier.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Ken Clark you idiot. There are no words to describe how stupid and ill thought out his comments were. To say that date rape is not categorised as serious, violent rape is ridiculous, and frankly, an insult to date rape victims around the country.

The policy itself isn't ideal, but I understand the gist. An early guilty plea will result in a 50% reduction in the prison sentence. It is supposed to make the sentencing more swift and put less pressure on the rape victim to stand up in court and be questioned on their morals/values by wanker barristers to convince jurors that 'wearing a short skirt' is actually consent because 'she dressed like she wanted it'.

It should also lead to a higher conviction rate, the problem I have is Clark. He has ruined any chance of this policy being implemented and he needs to be pensioned off.

 

[phisheep]

Ken Clark you idiot. There are no words to describe how stupid and ill thought out his comments were. To say that date rape is not categorised as serious, violent rape is ridiculous, and frankly, an insult to date rape victims around the country.

The policy itself isn't ideal, but I understand the gist. An early guilty plea will result in a 50% reduction in the prison sentence. It is supposed to make the sentencing more swift and put less pressure on the rape victim to stand up in court and be questioned on their morals/values by wanker barristers to convince jurors that 'wearing a short skirt' is actually consent because 'she dressed like she wanted it'.

It should also lead to a higher conviction rate, the problem I have is Clark. He has ruined any chance of this policy being implemented and he needs to be pensioned off.

The proposals themselves don't seem all that wrong in light of the current sentencing.

Remember (IIRC) that the maximum sentence for rape is life. I dealt with a particularly nasty rape case recently and to be quite honest if this had been in place and the perpetrator had pleaded guilty it would have saved the victim a lot of emotional turmoil. And he'd still have got something like seven years, which would have been plenty enough.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about the conviction rate for rape, with some sources putting it as low as 6%. Actually for those cases that come to court it is more like 66%-ish.

This proposal is slightly self-correcting anyway. If the judge knows that the sentence will be reduced by 50% for early guilty plea he'll quite likely put the sentence higher than he would previously have put it. Judges are not stupid, they are good at this sort of stuff.

I don't see any reason for Clarke to be sacked for telling it like it is - it is one of his talents after all.

 

[Meadows]

Ken Clark you idiot. There are no words to describe how stupid and ill thought out his comments were. To say that date rape is not categorised as serious, violent rape is ridiculous, and frankly, an insult to date rape victims around the country.

The policy itself isn't ideal, but I understand the gist. An early guilty plea will result in a 50% reduction in the prison sentence. It is supposed to make the sentencing more swift and put less pressure on the rape victim to stand up in court and be questioned on their morals/values by wanker barristers to convince jurors that 'wearing a short skirt' is actually consent because 'she dressed like she wanted it'.

It should also lead to a higher conviction rate, the problem I have is Clark. He has ruined any chance of this policy being implemented and he needs to be pensioned off.

Well said

 

[Meadows]

The proposals themselves don't seem all that wrong in light of the current sentencing.

Remember (IIRC) that the maximum sentence for rape is life. I dealt with a particularly nasty rape case recently and to be quite honest if this had been in place and the perpetrator had pleaded guilty it would have saved the victim a lot of emotional turmoil. And he'd still have got something like seven years, which would have been plenty enough.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about the conviction rate for rape, with some sources putting it as low as 6%. Actually for those cases that come to court it is more like 66%-ish.

This proposal is slightly self-correcting anyway. If the judge knows that the sentence will be reduced by 50% for early guilty plea he'll quite likely put the sentence higher than he would previously have put it. Judges are not stupid, they are good at this sort of stuff.

I don't see any reason for Clarke to be sacked for telling it like it is - it is one of his talents after all.

Where do you get those 66% stats from? I've read numerous Sociology/Women's studies journals that have put the court conviction rate at between 6-13% but never anywhere near that high. Could I have the source please?

 

[Walshicus]

David Cameron told MPs rape was "one of the most serious crimes that there is and it should be met with proper punishment" and the "real disgrace" was that only 6% of reported rape cases ended in a conviction.

No Mr Cameron a 6% conviction rate is not a "disgrace". The notion that any conviction rate could be wrong in of itself is fucking ridiculous in a society that claims to follow the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

The highest priority for our legal system should be to ensure that each and every verdict is as accurate as possible - not to increase the rate of conviction.




As for the bulk of what Ken Clarke said, it's not too controversial. His distinction between "rape" of a 15 year old by a 17 year old where both parties were willing, and violent rape are perfectly valid.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

No Mr Cameron a 6% conviction rate is not a "disgrace". The notion that any conviction rate could be wrong in of itself is fucking ridiculous in a society that claims to follow the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

The highest priority for our legal system should be to ensure that each and every verdict is as accurate as possible - not to increase the rate of conviction.




As for the bulk of what Ken Clarke said, it's not too controversial. His distinction between "rape" of a 15 year old by a 17 year old where both parties were willing, and violent rape are perfectly valid.

It is a disgrace that only 6% of all rapes reported to the police end in a prison sentence. I get that there will be cases of false accusation/revenge etc... but not 94% of cases fit into that category.

The problem is that only 10% of all rapes reported are taken to trial because of the word of the accused vs word of the victim and how well the victim will hold up under questions about 'how short was your skirt' or 'how many drinks did you accept from the accused' from the defence.

 

[Walshicus]

It is a disgrace that only 6% of all rapes reported to the police end in a prison sentence. I get that there will be cases of false accusation/revenge etc... but not 94% of cases fit into that category.

The problem is that only 10% of all rapes reported are taken to trial because of the word of the accused vs word of the victim and how well the victim will hold up under questions about 'how short was your skirt' or 'how many drinks did you accept from the accused' from the defence.

And who the fuck are you or anyone to be dictating a "reasonable" rate of conviction. I'm sorry, it's infuriating to see BASIC principles of our legal system thrown to the side because people are too busy appealing to the masses than doing what's right. Conviction rate is a meaningless, bullshit statistic to be judging the effectiveness of the legal system and we should never focus on it. Accuracy of verdict is paramount.

Burden of proof is absolutely on the accuser, be it for rape, murder, fraud or theft.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

And who the fuck are you or anyone to be dictating a "reasonable" rate of conviction. I'm sorry, it's infuriating to see BASIC principles of our legal system thrown to the side because people are too busy appealing to the masses than doing what's right. Conviction rate is a meaningless, bullshit statistic to be judging the effectiveness of the legal system and we should never focus on it. Accuracy of verdict is paramount.

Burden of proof is absolutely on the accuser, be it for rape, murder, fraud or theft.

So you are seriously telling me that 94% of women and men reporting rapes are lying to the police?

Fuck you dude. The reason these cases fall apart is because of aggressive tactics from defence lawyers who browbeat and scare the victims into a state where they can no longer take the witness stand so the case falls apart before it goes to trial. This legislation will hopefully sidestep that stage, and as phisheep said, judges will raise the sentence so that criminals won't get off lightly if they take the plea bargain.

It is a good piece of legislation which will bring more criminals to justice. The reason I am raging at Clark is because he said stupid stuff which is going to either cause the government to delay or drop the legislation entirely which is a mistake.

 

[Meadows]

And who the fuck are you or anyone to be dictating a "reasonable" rate of conviction. I'm sorry, it's infuriating to see BASIC principles of our legal system thrown to the side because people are too busy appealing to the masses than doing what's right. Conviction rate is a meaningless, bullshit statistic to be judging the effectiveness of the legal system and we should never focus on it. Accuracy of verdict is paramount.

Burden of proof is absolutely on the accuser, be it for rape, murder, fraud or theft.

Accuracy is obviously the most important thing, but it isn't the case that in 94% of rape reporting the woman is lying. To think so would be hugely problematic.

Edit:

Oh, and my problems with Clarke don't come from constented statutory rape, but more with his comments on date rape. Date rape is in some cases worse than violent rape, when you get raped by a beardy weirdy on the street then, whilst it is obviously beyond horrific, and will scar you for life, there aren't the same feelings of guilt and deceit. In most date rape cases the victim knew the raper, so they get massive trust issues and often blame themselves.

 

[Walshicus]

So you are seriously telling me that 94% of women and men reporting rapes are lying to the police?

No, I'm saying that assuming any number to be right or wrong requires proof. Turn that around; YOU are saying that 94% of men and women accused of rape are guilty, with no evidence to back that up other than the word of their accuser.

Fuck you dude. The reason these cases fall apart is because of aggressive tactics from defence lawyers who browbeat and scare the victims into a state where they can no longer take the witness stand so the case falls apart before it goes to trial. This legislation will hopefully sidestep that stage, and as phisheep said, judges will raise the sentence so that criminals won't get off lightly if they take the plea bargain.

No, the reason these cases fall apart is because it's almost always fundamentally a case of he-said-she-said, and our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.

 

[radioheadrule83]

No, I'm saying that assuming any number to be right or wrong requires proof. Turn that around; YOU are saying that 94% of men and women accused of rape are guilty, with no evidence to back that up other than the word of their accuser.

No, the reason these cases fall apart is because it's almost always fundamentally a case of he-said-she-said, and our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.

I agree with this man.

I know a rape victim, and even though I'm not fully able to comprehend how it affects her, I know enough to think its one of the worst crimes that human beings perpetrate on one another. That said, the principle that the law treats people as innocent until proven guilty is a just one. That is not something that we should not compromise on out of passion.

Any initiative which seeks to drive up the conviction rate to some kind of arbitrary figure that would be "acceptable", and that lowers the burden of proof - would be a dangerous initiative that could lead to more wrongful convictions.

 

[phisheep]

Where do you get those 66% stats from? I've read numerous Sociology/Women's studies journals that have put the court conviction rate at between 6-13% but never anywhere near that high. Could I have the source please?

Ministry of Justice criminal statistics.

I can't remember which one I looked at for that niumber, but here's an example. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/criminal-statistics-annual.pdf

There are others that go into details of trial procedures/early guilty pleas/specific offences and so on and so on.

This popular figure of 6% causes a great deal of concern to victims/witnesses in criminal trials for rape, since they are concerned that they will go through all the trial procedure and the guy will get off. It's not so. But this in itself may contribute to the relatively low number of cases brought versus reported crimes.

The really big problem is that so few of the rapes reported ever get to court. Partly that is from false accusations (including for example one where I was present throughout a two-hour, fully-clothed, arms-length conversation in a pub and a female present went to the police and accused a male present of rape), partly from victims/witnesses unwilling to give evidence (common where there is an existing relationship), partly through insufficient evidence to charge.

But once they get to court, the conviction rate is more-or-less what you'd expect of a sensible justice system - and nowhere near the cause for concern that gets bandied around by those touting the 6% statistic - it isn't the courts and juries that are at fault here.

EDIT: Another impact is that where there is actual harm involved, it is easier to convict under ABH/GBH rather than rape, as it easier to prove (medical evidence and all that). For example, I have one on the go now where rape and GBH were reported. It'll go down in that statistics as yet another rape that was never charged, but in practice the guy is likely to go down for 4 years on the GBH charge - so it isn't like he'll get off scot-free.

 

[Meadows]

I meant conviction rate from the point of reporting, not from the point at which it goes to a verdict.

That is, still, 6%.

The 6% figure comes from a 2003 (so is not up to date, but I am not aware of any significant changes in legislation since then here) report by Linda Regan and Liz Kelly, both highly respected.

The report compared conviction rates, and practices in European countries, and found that most had archaic systems for rape victims, or worse, kept no statistics as to the amount of convictions (or withheld them).

Countries that came out well included:

Germany
The UK
Poland

The countries you would expect to do badly (Turkey, eastern Europe etc) generally did.

The report's statistics came directly from respective countries justice departments, and the UK department (after a long delay) gave the statistic of 6% from the point of police reporting.

Common issues for stopping the process of a rape trial include:

The victim pulling out so as to put the issue behind them (these trials take ages)
Lack of evidence
Feelings of guilt in the victim
Lack of council

Those that go the whole way (i.e. to a verdict) do generally go the way of guilty, and I don't think anyone is saying that 100% of the time it should be guilty, as, yes, from time to time the allegations are made up, and if proven, the woman who makes the allegations up should do time in prison.

Here is the report if anyone is interested, it isn't too long.

http://www.rcne.com/downloads/RepsPubs/Attritn.pdf

 

[Wilester]

I don't think Clarke deserves to be publicly ridiculed as much as he has by the tabloids and by Labour.

I just think he used a very bad choice of words. He knows that all rape is serious. Of course he does. What I make of his comments is that he's saying that "serious rape" includes other serious factors such as assault and violence, not as commonly seen in date rape which pushes up the length of the sentence.

In terms of the policy for rapists to get 50% off their sentence for pleading guilty is far too high and the less said about possibly being free in half the time for all other cases the better. But that's not what this whole debacle is about.

Is he a buffoon for phrasing it as he did. Absolutely. Should he lose his job over it? No.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLcwhgrxTWs&feature=player_embedded

Video from PMQs. Good answer from the PM...

 

[phisheep]

I meant conviction rate from the point of reporting, not from the point at which it goes to a verdict.

Ah well, if that's what you meant then the 6% is spot on.

However, if that is the conviction rate that's being talked about I can't see that tinkering with sentencing will make a blind bit of difference to it. If the case doesn't come to court in the first place then there's no opportunity for a guilty plea anyhow.

 

[Mr. Sam]

God damn The Sun and The Mail are out for blood with Clarke.

 

[Zenith]

Stupidly phrased but honestly not a resigning issue.

 

[SmokyDave]

A certain politician may have made some unfortunate comments recently. Even though I think I see where he's coming from, I think he ought to have thought a lot longer before opening his mush.


The missus loves Ken Clarke (he's her MP). I'm not allowed to say a word against the man, here or elsewhere. I'm under a super-injunction.

 

[kitch9]

But this didn't happen.

Labour didn't overspend?

Wut?

 

[War Peaceman]

Just to balance out the pro-austerity camp, here is an interesting article on the Canadian programme of cuts which the Tories use as a model for theirs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/18/tory-cuts-uk-bank-debt