Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Who wrote and sent the email? The video doesn't say. Mahmood says her aide didn't tell her.... 2 possibilities here. The aide really didn't tell her so should be sacked or Mahmood is lying and should be sacked.

We are also not told what this meeting where this was discussed was. Which organisation organised it? What powers, if any, did that body have? Is it an official government body or is it some weird think tank or similar? Again we don't know.

More questions than answers.

It’s true, MA. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has suggested that the ethnic background of offenders should be made a greater factor in determining sentences.
It’s apparently aimed at addressing the over representation of black and ethnic minority people within the criminal justice system.

What also appears to be true is the fact that Ministers have criticised such plans and Shabana Mahmood has stated very clearly that she will be writing to the Sentencing Council to ‘register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance’.

Of course the likes of Jenrick, GoBSh*t* News and you know who have got it round their necks…again!
One has to wonder about what the purpose of constantly regurgitating such mistaken nonsense might be. You’d think they’d learned nothing from the events of last summer.

[MadAmster]

It’s true, MA. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has suggested that the ethnic background of offenders should be made a greater factor in determining sentences.
It’s apparently aimed at addressing the over representation of black and ethnic minority people within the criminal justice system.

What also appears to be true is the fact that Ministers have criticised such plans and Shabana Mahmood has stated very clearly that she will be writing to the Sentencing Council to ‘register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance’.

Of course the likes of Jenrick, GoBSh*t* News and you know who have got it round their necks…again!
One has to wonder about what the purpose of constantly regurgitating such mistaken nonsense might be. You’d think they’d learned nothing from the events of last summer.

Long live GBeebies hey?

Just seen that bit in bold on the lunchtime news. It also seems that Mahmood has no jurisdiction over the Sentencing Council, she can only request or advise or recommend...

[ramAnag]

Long live GBeebies hey?

Just seen that bit in bold on the lunchtime news. It also seems that Mahmood has no jurisdiction over the Sentencing Council, she can only request or advise or recommend...

Exactly! An altogether different issue but, like you, I always find it useful to follow more ‘grown up’ news sources.

[MadAmster]

Exactly! An altogether different issue but, like you, I always find it useful to follow more ‘grown up’ news sources.

Do you often see people who post things on "social media" and then acknowledge they were wrong? I don't and I don't think it will happen here either.

[ramAnag]

Do you often see people who post things on "social media" and then acknowledge they were wrong? I don't and I don't think it will happen here either.

Tbh I don’t see much on social media - other than this forum - at all. Mainly because I really can’t be doing with all the deliberate misinformation and half baked anecdotal half truths.
The process of reading and repeating what is, all too often, little more than exaggerated drivel has become dangerous though imo. Just as mobile phone technology has made everyone a photographer, so the internet has seen too many people become wannabe journalists and unfortunately the gullible swallow it all up because it reinforces their reality.

[Trickytreesreds]

It?s true, MA. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has suggested that the ethnic background of offenders should be made a greater factor in determining sentences.
It?s apparently aimed at addressing the over representation of black and ethnic minority people within the criminal justice system.

What also appears to be true is the fact that Ministers have criticised such plans and Shabana Mahmood has stated very clearly that she will be writing to the Sentencing Council to ?register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance?.

Of course the likes of Jenrick, GoBSh*t* News and you know who have got it round their necks?again!
One has to wonder about what the purpose of constantly regurgitating such mistaken nonsense might be. You?d think they?d learned nothing from the events of last summer.

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

[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/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. 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

[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.