Labour Watch

[George M]

Hopefully they will not fill the post and shut down that particular department

[Dunners]

Labour have a lot to contend with right now. Economic stagnation, crumbling infrastructure, ageing population, rising international security tensions etc.....

So the last thing they'll need now is the Pope dying. Especially given the last time a pope died and everyone's favourite Foreign Secretary decided to stick his oar in.

20250301_092343.jpg (114.33 KiB) Viewed 314 times

[Currywurst and Chips]

Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2

[Long slender neck]

Bizarre, but looks like it will not happen. You just wonder why they come up with this stuff in the first place

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2

I mean I'm a bit hesitant to align with the 'two tier kier' guys and gals but its literally what this is suggesting, isn't it?

[Long slender neck]

Well if you've grown up with such a disadvantage, will sending someone to prison help?

[Hoover Attack]

Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2

I mean I'm a bit hesitant to align with the 'two tier kier' guys and gals but its literally what this is suggesting, isn't it?

It was initiated under the previous Government, the blue tory one. Thankfully the new Government have said they won't allow this to happen. That's all in the article.

So, no. This suggests one tier kier.

[Dunners]

Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2

I mean I'm a bit hesitant to align with the 'two tier kier' guys and gals but its literally what this is suggesting, isn't it?

It was initiated under the previous Government, the blue tory one. Thankfully the new Government have said they won't allow this to happen. That's all in the article.

So, no. This suggests one tier kier.

Er.... not quite.

Here are the minutes from when the sentencing guidelines were agreed: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/pu ... uary-2025/

Representatives of the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood MP, were present at the time and raised no objection to the passing of these sentencing guidelines. She's only trying to distance herself from them now because she's been publicly called out. If this had not been called out, it would have passed (and still may as she no longer has the authority to prevent it).

[Hoover Attack]

Sorry, I was mistakenly referring to the sections within the article where it said:

'A Labour source pointed out that the last government was aware of the change in guidance during a consultation that ended in February last year'. and assumed that meant it was initiated and unchallenged under the previous government and

Mahmood said: “The Sentencing Council is entirely independent. These guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government. I will be writing to the council to register my displeasure and recommend reversing this change to guidance.

“As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind.

“There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch.” and assumed the bit where she said she doesn't agree with and won't allow a two-tier system meant she doesn't agree with and won't allow a two-tier system.

My apologies for misreading.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

None of what you’ve just quoted deal with the claim that what’s happened is simply crisis management as this goes public

[Dunners]

It's right that this kick-started under the Tories, so they can wind their necks in.

However, two of her representatives were authorised to attend the Sentencing Council's meeting on her behalf, with advance knowledge of the agenda. If she had not agreed with the two-tier sentencing approach, then they had the opportunity to mention that and object to the guidance being approved. But they, acting on the Justice Secretary's behalf, did not object to it.

She is only now saying that she does "not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". She did not say it before, when the topic was actually being debated in the appropriate forum. So it's reasonable to assume that her sudden public statements are not entirely values she holds dear.

Also, her statement that "There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch" is all well and good. But, as she has also acknowledged, she does not have the authority to overturn the Sentencing Council's decisions (the appropriate moment for her to announce her concerns has passed).

I'm sure that political pressure is now going to be applied so that these guidelines are revised now that they've been publicly called out, of course. Which means that due process is being thrown out the window for the sake of avoiding poor optics.

[Hoover Attack]

I accept it's possible that this 'two-tier' system is what Labour really want and they thought it wouldn't go public, I guess.

[Hoover Attack]

It's right that this kick-started under the Tories, so they can wind their necks in.

However, two of her representatives were authorised to attend the Sentencing Council's meeting on her behalf, with advance knowledge of the agenda. If she had not agreed with the two-tier sentencing approach, then they had the opportunity to mention that and object to the guidance being approved. But they, acting on the Justice Secretary's behalf, did not object to it.

She is only now saying that she does "not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". She did not say it before, when the topic was actually being debated in the appropriate forum. So it's reasonable to assume that her sudden public statements are not entirely values she holds dear.

Also, her statement that "There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch" is all well and good. But, as she has also acknowledged, she does not have the authority to overturn the Sentencing Council's decisions (the appropriate moment for her to announce her concerns has passed).

I'm sure that political pressure is now going to be applied so that these guidelines are revised now that they've been publicly called out, of course. Which means that due process is being thrown out the window for the sake of avoiding poor optics.

So all's well that ends well. Us straight white men with penises will no longer be persecuted in the courts because of our sexuality, colour and penises.

[Dunners]

I just don't think they always think things through.

[Hoover Attack]

Granted but even they must have seen the optics of this wouldn't look good when your PM has already earned the nickname 2 tier Kier.

[Dunners]

That's the point I'm making. The meeting was held on 24 January 2025, by which time the 2-tier Kier nickname was well established. And they did not see the optics at that time, never mind wanting to object on the grounds of any deeply-held principles of equal justice.

[StillSpike]

Maybe her officials DID see the optics at the time, but maybe they hate her and wanted her to look a tw*t, so they kept quiet when they got back from the meeting?

[Proposition Joe]

Or maybe they did see the optics but, as with so many other things, just decided to go with it anyway and crossed their fingers either noone would notice or that pushback would be minimal. In which case, Launch the Reverse Ferret.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

It's right that this kick-started under the Tories, so they can wind their necks in.

However, two of her representatives were authorised to attend the Sentencing Council's meeting on her behalf, with advance knowledge of the agenda. If she had not agreed with the two-tier sentencing approach, then they had the opportunity to mention that and object to the guidance being approved. But they, acting on the Justice Secretary's behalf, did not object to it.

She is only now saying that she does "not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". She did not say it before, when the topic was actually being debated in the appropriate forum. So it's reasonable to assume that her sudden public statements are not entirely values she holds dear.

Also, her statement that "There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch" is all well and good. But, as she has also acknowledged, she does not have the authority to overturn the Sentencing Council's decisions (the appropriate moment for her to announce her concerns has passed).

I'm sure that political pressure is now going to be applied so that these guidelines are revised now that they've been publicly called out, of course. Which means that due process is being thrown out the window for the sake of avoiding poor optics.

So all's well that ends well. Us straight white men with penises will no longer be persecuted in the courts because of our sexuality, colour and penises.

This is kind of the issue in a nutshell though, and is an example of what I think the actual difference is between the old nonsense of “PC gone mad” (nearly always baseless or exaggerated) and “wokeness” (people and policies actually exemplifying the old nonsense)

If you introduce a policy in which a group - in this news story ethnic minorities or people who say they are trans - is treated favourably relative to (as you say) “straight white males” then those right wing populists whose strategy has always been “pretend that the whites are persecuted” are given a huge injection of legitimacy

[Dunners]

Or maybe they did see the optics but, as with so many other things, just decided to go with it anyway and crossed their fingers either noone would notice or that pushback would be minimal. In which case, Launch the Reverse Ferret.

I quite like Spike's theory. It's the sort of thing I'd do.

[Max B Gold]

It's a complete and utter shambles from start to finish. I predict there will be more to come.

[Max B Gold]

It's right that this kick-started under the Tories, so they can wind their necks in.

However, two of her representatives were authorised to attend the Sentencing Council's meeting on her behalf, with advance knowledge of the agenda. If she had not agreed with the two-tier sentencing approach, then they had the opportunity to mention that and object to the guidance being approved. But they, acting on the Justice Secretary's behalf, did not object to it.

She is only now saying that she does "not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". She did not say it before, when the topic was actually being debated in the appropriate forum. So it's reasonable to assume that her sudden public statements are not entirely values she holds dear.

Also, her statement that "There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch" is all well and good. But, as she has also acknowledged, she does not have the authority to overturn the Sentencing Council's decisions (the appropriate moment for her to announce her concerns has passed).

I'm sure that political pressure is now going to be applied so that these guidelines are revised now that they've been publicly called out, of course. Which means that due process is being thrown out the window for the sake of avoiding poor optics.

So all's well that ends well. Us straight white men with penises will no longer be persecuted in the courts because of our sexuality, colour and penises.

This is kind of the issue in a nutshell though, and is an example of what I think the actual difference is between the old nonsense of “PC gone mad” (nearly always baseless or exaggerated) and “wokeness” (people and policies actually exemplifying the old nonsense)

If you introduce a policy in which a group - in this news story ethnic minorities or people who say they are trans - is treated favourably relative to (as you say) “straight white males” then those right wing populists whose strategy has always been “pretend that the whites are persecuted” are given a huge injection of legitimacy

I would like to add that its exactly the outcome one would expect from rootless identarian politics managed by rootless managerial political operatives.

[Long slender neck]

It's a complete and utter shambles from start to finish. I predict there will be more to come.

Apparently the next outrage will be something about islamaphobia. At least thats what an old reformer tells me

[Max B Gold]

Hmm. I thought it was going to be about screwing the poor to feed the arms industry and its billionaire owners.

[Dunners]

LOL. Of course. Lammy.

"New sentencing guidelines urging special treatment for ethnic and religious minorities were drawn up on the back of recommendations in David Lammy's race disparities review"

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