The Labour Government

BlueHammer85 said:
You realise most of which hasn’t been fully implemented yet and going through parliament?

Anyhow

www.mirror.co.uk

Smuggling gangs hit in largest crackdown on record

Official data reveals a 33% surge in smuggling arrests, convictions and seizures of criminal cash and assets following Keir Starmer's pledge to “smash the gangs”.
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk

www.lbc.co.uk

More than 1,000 illegal workers removed from UK following mass immigration raids | LBC

Over 1,050 migrants were removed from the country following the Home Office's largest crackdown on illegal working on record
www.lbc.co.uk www.lbc.co.uk

www.standard.co.uk

Home Office release footage of deportations as almost 19,000 migrants removed

Social media campaigns warning about the dangers of illegal working in Britain have gone live in Vietnam and Albania, but migrants continue to cross the Channel
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk

www.gov.uk

Largest crackdown on illegal workers since records began

Number of illegal working arrests skyrocket by 63% as Immigration Enforcement carry out highest level of raids in British history.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Every single one of those measures has failed to stop the boats, you're living in cloud cuckoo land blindly following your leader
 
Earlyriser said:
It would help if you were not overly selective. He's proposing that for any offence that carries a sentence of 3 years or under should not have a jury trial. I don't see a problem with this. The type of offences that would fall into this are those generally committed by the scum bags of society eg theft, benefit fraud, dangerous driving, drug possession and some forms of assault. Why block the courts up with these wasters.
Click to expand...
I don't see a problem with it either. Something had to be done to clear the backlog.
 
Earlyriser said:
Made up scenarios? 56% of those in prison for sentences of 12 months or less are repeat offenders. How many crimes of a similar nature do you think somebody should commit before being classified as a repeat offender?
Click to expand...
Erm.. 3 years or less sentences 15 convictions to

Errr..........

Sentences of 12mths or less half are repeat offenders, repeat offenders like err.... twice is a repeat three is a repeat 4 is a........

Like I said policy shouldn't get acceptance based on a worst/ott case made up scenario.

Move on
 
I actually don’t mind the justice changes. The backlog is massive so something needs to be done. They might have to think about paying some of the magistrates involved though to reflect the greater responsibility
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
It seemed like you had decided that everyone who goes to court is a serial offending so and so. Hopefully you never get charged with anything and have your fate in the hands of someone with similar views to yours!
Click to expand...
There are 2 issues here. Firstly, I believe it is justified not to have a jury for any offence that has a tariff of less than 3 years even if it is your first offence. Secondly, I believe it is even more justified for anyone who is charged with a second offence that carries a similar tariff to the first offence.
You might be interested to know after 70 years I have not been charged with anything. I've always thought drug dealing, shop lifting, driving without insurance or decking my wife was not a rational choice.
 
Earlyriser said:
There are 2 issues here. Firstly, I believe it is justified not to have a jury for any offence that has a tariff of less than 3 years even if it is your first offence. Secondly, I believe it is even more justified for anyone who is charged with a second offence that carries a similar tariff to the first offence.
You might be interested to know after 70 years I have not been charged with anything. I've always thought drug dealing, shop lifting, driving without insurance or decking my wife was not a rational choice.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point of what I am saying. Your second point shows that you fundamentally misunderstand that the courts are blind in terms of antecedents in not guilty cases requiring trials (save for bad character cases).
 
With all these barristers and lawyers railing against this, I have real apprehensions. Then I think, is there a money motivation here as they cover more, and longer trial times.

With a few lawyers on here, can you confirm if the current system benefits you, monetary wise?
 
hampshireblue said:
It seems you're quite dismissive of anyone in a job that you seem to deem not of a high enough status. It feels like you're a bit of a job snob. Out of interest what job do you do?
Click to expand...
I’m not dismissive of anyone, I work in a pretty normal job in data, I firmly categorise myself as one of the great unwashed

I’m merely dismissive of policies that harm the economy
 
liveandletdive said:
Boat crossing are up 53% this year, so yeah, we will blame Labour and Starmer directly.
Click to expand...

and will you give praise when Labour and Starmer reduce the crossings, dismantle smuggler networks, create alternative legal routes, process claims quicker and improve cooperation with EU partners ? if all the border bills go through and proves to be a success will you be happy ? because i can assure you Reform and Farage will never be happy, constantly provoke outrage and demand more be done. some of us are more rational and can see whats at play here.
 
Earlyriser said:
It would help if you were not overly selective. He's proposing that for any offence that carries a sentence of 3 years or under should not have a jury trial. I don't see a problem with this. The type of offences that would fall into this are those generally committed by the scum bags of society eg theft, benefit fraud, dangerous driving, drug possession and some forms of assault. Why block the courts up with these wasters.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a reasonable plan.

An alternative would be to still guarantee all these dirtballs a jury trial with the proviso that a 3 strikes and you’re out system would apply which would pretty soon clear the backlog. And the streets of scum.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
There’s many many more measures still going through parliament. They’ve had a year in power. Tories had 14 and Brexit increased the boat crossings. But yes, let’s blame Labour.
Click to expand...
That's how it works, don't make promises you can't keep, smash the gangs my arse! It's a wonder they haven't blamed the black hole, oh hang on
 
mind your car Mr? said:
That's how it works, don't make promises you can't keep, smash the gangs my arse! It's a wonder they haven't blamed the black hole, oh hang on
Click to expand...


As has been posted before the Legislation to enable us to ''smash the gangs'' is still in parliament (currently in the House of Lords as of two weeks ago) .... so a promise made cannot be kept until its on the statute books.

If the Tories and Reform had supported it ..... it would probably be law by now.
 
Removing juries for certain charges is a practical step.

The choices are:

1 alter the system (by removing juries)

2 accept the status quo and leave thousands of cases in a backlog indefinitely (meaning justice isn’t served).

3 raise taxes/borrow money to pay to get the backlog down.

Labour are going down the best route to tackle the legacy of Tory Austerity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top