The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
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?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 6:47 am Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules
https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2
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.Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:49 amI 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?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 6:47 am Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules
https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2
Er.... not quite.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:00 amIt 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.Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:49 amI 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?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 6:47 am Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules
https://www.thetimes.com/article/9070ae ... 09459313e2
So, no. This suggests one tier kier.
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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:34 am 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.
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)Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:38 amSo 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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:34 am 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.
I quite like Spike's theory. It's the sort of thing I'd do.Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 10:17 am 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 would like to add that its exactly the outcome one would expect from rootless identarian politics managed by rootless managerial political operatives.CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 10:22 amThis 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)Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:38 amSo 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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:34 am 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.
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
Apparently the next outrage will be something about islamaphobia. At least thats what an old reformer tells meMax B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 10:52 am It's a complete and utter shambles from start to finish. I predict there will be more to come.