Election Year or Fear!

[MadAmster]

oh really? It seems Labours finger prints are all over this, no matter how much Mahmood squirms.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics...ammy-6h2s6djgn

Behind a paywall.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is not subservient to HMG. That is a fact. Lammy might have written a suggestion, I don't know as I can't access the URL you posted. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is in no way bound to follow that suggestion. Nuance matters but, it seems, not to you. Context seems to be a stranger. That's probably why the more intelligent of people look further than the end of their nose before coming to a conclusion. Your rants, the URL's you post all seem to have one thing in common. They lack context, they lack nuance, they lack perspective.

Could you let us know, with context, what it is Lammy wrote? Was it a suggestion or an instruction? Was the Sentencing Council for England and Wales bound, in any way, to follow the content? Did the Sentencing Council for England and Wales merely come to a conclusion themselves?

The info requested is really necessary in order to ponder our own conclusion on this. TIA.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Behind a paywall.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is not subservient to HMG. That is a fact. Lammy might have written a suggestion, I don't know as I can't access the URL you posted. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is in no way bound to follow that suggestion. Nuance matters but, it seems, not to you. Context seems to be a stranger. That's probably why the more intelligent of people look further than the end of their nose before coming to a conclusion. Your rants, the URL's you post all seem to have one thing in common. They lack context, they lack nuance, they lack perspective.

Could you let us know, with context, what it is Lammy wrote? Was it a suggestion or an instruction? Was the Sentencing Council for England and Wales bound, in any way, to follow the content? Did the Sentencing Council for England and Wales merely come to a conclusion themselves?

The info requested is really necessary in order to ponder our own conclusion on this. TIA.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/new-sentencing-guidance-improves-current-two-tier-system/5122576.article

The above should clarify for you MA - its from the Law Society Gazzette, so in theory should be free from the right wing bias rA sees round every corner: but maybe not. Its free.

Its an odd one really - the pre sentencing process seems to be seen in different ways. The Lammy report (almost 10 years old now) unsurprisingly concluded that it worked against BAME (not sure of thats now politically correct phraseology) felons and meant such were more likely to receive longer sentences. It was contended that this was not appropriate, if true. The concern now seems to be that that "BAME" receive softer sentences because of that status. So its a double edged sword .

Note the PSR process is not just aimed at racial minoroties but all manner of convicted persons, including trans, pregnant women, thouse with mental health problems etc

Dont know if it helps but, for what its worth, I think politicians of whatever flavours should butt out of the operation of the legal process. Set the rules and then let the professionally qualified bodies wotk within that framework. Politicians, like most people, have their own inherent biases - usually associated with getting reelected. By all means establist review panels to oversee the effectiveness of the process but otherwise STFU

[MadAmster]

Ta, GP. So basically, it's guidance, not demands. Doesn't come from HMG. The Lammy report to which TTR referred was 10 years ago. Basically, he and God knows how many others are getting their panties in a pickle over very little. I know he'll come back with something like "same sentence for same crime" but as long as it's not violence, seks related (and yes, some have been and shouldn't have) or some other serious crime, it's not unreasonable to come up with a punishment that doesn't put the criminal in serious danger.

I also remember a few reports of people getting fines and/or community service because they ran a business and, if they were incarcerated, the business would fold and several people would find themselves out of work.

[ramAnag]

absolute kack. your bible the Guardian is a left wing news source, total anti Tory and either slants it all left wing.woke, or ignores the stories full stop. Its lists of columists include Corbyn loving Own Jones, and "I'm virtually a communist" Ash Sakar,
centrist my arse

Thanks for that well informed and thoughtful response.

[ramAnag]

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/comment...122576.article

The above should clarify for you MA - its from the Law Society Gazzette, so in theory should be free from the right wing bias rA sees round every corner: but maybe not.

Hardly just little old me, GP.

Consider this from the Press Gazette:

‘Kier Starmer will have to contend with a largely right wing printed press…

…the Mail, Express titles, Sun and Telegraph give right leaning daily newspapers a substantial 2.2 million to 300,000 circulation advantage over left wing titles’.

Still, what would they know compared to you and Tricky? Must all be in my imagination.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Hardly just little old me, GP.

Consider this from the Press Gazette:

‘Kier Starmer will have to contend with a largely right wing printed press…

…the Mail, Express titles, Sun and Telegraph give right leaning daily newspapers a substantial 2.2 million to 300,000 circulation advantage over left wing titles’.

Still, what would they know compared to you and Tricky? Must all be in my imagination.

So both the centre right and centre left parties have to contend with political bias. I'd contend that the mainstream centre right parties are to the left of the Mail Express et al and the centre left are to the right of the Grauniad. Reform might best align with the Mail Express etc.

But in all honesty who gets news by buying papers? Most are broadly pointless to anyone under 40, so circulation figures mean nothing. It's the 40+ generation that buy paper papers and their voting patterns are usually locked in by then. Curiously I understand that most of the Sun readers are your mainstream (traditionally labour) working people who buy it for titz and football and likely don't read the political/editorial content. So I'd argue the newspapers are fast losing relevance and the circulation gap isn't so influential.

Voters under 40 seem more influenced by social media rather than "the press" and those over 40 are unlikely to change political beliefs much despite what they read/see/hear.

The Mail might write a lot but it's really preaching to the converted and the Express surely has no place anywhere, still less newsagents shelves

[Geoff Parkstone]

So having just written that I found the article you had cherry picked the quote from. I urge you and anyone interested to read it all. Here's my cherrypick:

"Where things get considerably easier for Keir Starmer than his predecessor Neil Kinnock is when you look at the overall sources of news in the UK. The vast majority are neutral with just two opinionated newsbrands making it into the top 20 sources of news listed by Britons responding to the annual Ofcom survey of news consumption.

Ofcom asked 4,556 adults to name all the platforms they use for news "nowadays" in 2023.

The neutral BBC and other broadcasters dominate the list while some 14% of Britons said they use the right-leaning Mail brands for news and 10% cited the left-leaning Guardian/Observer brands. No other partisan titles feature in the Ofcom top 20.

Facebook is used by 30% of Britons for news."

That last line is deeply disurbing

[Andy_Faber]

Facebook is used by 30% of Britons for news."

That last line is deeply disurbing

Why’s it disturbing GP, genuine question

Maybe it’s the newsfeed slant that’s pushed at me, but most of the ‘news’ I get emanates from ‘trusted’ (ie commercial) entities. I will admit that many of them will of course be ‘clickbating’ and will therefore focus on more controversial news stories at the expense of more important ones, but interrogation suggests they are fact. What then used to surprise but now doesn’t is that most of the stories offering ‘liberal / progressive’ views are responded to, en masse, often in their thousands or more, with opposing ‘conservative’ views.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I despise Facebook as a place for title tattle and phoney people.

[Andy_Faber]

I despise Facebook as a place for title tattle and phoney people.

Well there is that. F1 groups make me genuinely wonder about people

[ramAnag]

So having just written that I found the article you had cherry picked the quote from. I urge you and anyone interested to read it all. Here's my cherrypick:

"Where things get considerably easier for Keir Starmer than his predecessor Neil Kinnock is when you look at the overall sources of news in the UK. The vast majority are neutral with just two opinionated newsbrands making it into the top 20 sources of news listed by Britons responding to the annual Ofcom survey of news consumption.

Ofcom asked 4,556 adults to name all the platforms they use for news "nowadays" in 2023.

The neutral BBC and other broadcasters dominate the list while some 14% of Britons said they use the right-leaning Mail brands for news and 10% cited the left-leaning Guardian/Observer brands. No other partisan titles feature in the Ofcom top 20.

Facebook is used by 30% of Britons for news."

That last line is deeply disurbing

No cherry picking…just identification of the relevant figures, but I can only agree with your final sentence.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I would disagree with your use of the word "relevant" even if accurate. After all more people in the country may own Ford Model T's than Type 10 Bugattis but no one drives either ....

[SithHappens]

Meanwhile Reform have lost 25% of their MPs overnight.

Of course if the allegations against Lowe prove to be true its the right course of action. A lot of support for him online, suggestions it's only happened after he questioned the direction of the party.

[ramAnag]

I would disagree with your use of the word "relevant" even if accurate. After all more people in the country may own Ford Model T's than Type 10 Bugattis but no one drives either ....

Not even sure what that means, unless you’re suggesting that the printed press has become as redundant as the two vehicles described.
My point was that, as far as the printed press is concerned, there is a huge imbalance between any left leaning and right leaning press, a point recognised in the article quoted and I imagine this also extends to the online versions.
My objection to FB and other social media is that it legitimises what would previously have been little more than unfounded gossip and tittle tattle.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Your interpretation is correct.

The interesting things in the article to me are (a) how the online versions of what were printed press seem to be less extreme than the printed ones (b) how little difference there is in the numbers of people citing "biased" news sources (14% to 10% right over left) when compared to the hardcopy printed press circulation figures (c) how little influence the printed papers have as sources of news.