Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Ex-Liverpool Mayor on corruption charges along with a load of others, including Derek ( remember him ?) Hatton.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17qn4ng0gko

A senior aide to Wes Streeting has been suspended from the Labour Party and is under investigation in Parliament after pleading guilty to unlawfully exposing his genitals. Sam Gould, 33, intentionally exposed his genitals "intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm or distress".

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33779576/ ... ds-guilty/

So they’re going ahead anyway, over to you Keir

Government’s attempt to prevent ‘two-tier’ sentencing rebuked

https://www.thetimes.com/article/74cd04 ... 30b6868ef2

Seeing as it's a choice between defending the whole point of it being an independent body or acting tough, think the decision is an easy one for him.

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:21 am Seeing as it's a choice between defending the whole point of it being an independent body or acting tough, think the decision is an easy one for him.

What’s your views on the changes MM?

That, as you are undoubtedly aware, the purpose of the guidance has nothing to do with two tier justice, and that while the wording could be improved, the furore has been largely manufactured by the right wing press because two tier Kier is something which, in that awful phrase, has cut through.

Interesting take when we’re talking about subjecting people to different justice standards in respect of being subject to a PSR based on their skin colour, faith etc

That would be awful if it were true, but it's not.

So if you're a white man, your background cant be considered during sentencing, but if you're not, then it should be?

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:57 am That would be awful if it were true, but it's not.

I hope you’re right, the below lifted from the guidance so please explain to me why it’s not true?

So after reading the article, it transpires there is already a two tier system in place, whereby white criminals receive lower sentences than others. This is merely looking to prevent that happening (quite rightly).

How have Labour managed to balls that messaging up so badly?

The psr is not based on any of those characteristics, it's a non exhaustive list of when they should 'normally be considered necessary'. That's the deliberate distortion,

So everyone gets a psr?

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:19 am The psr is not based on any of those characteristics, it's a non exhaustive list of when they should 'normally be considered necessary'. That's the deliberate distortion,

Correct, but “Normally considered for” and “can still be necessary” aren’t exactly the same and creating a list of “normally considered for” creates the expectation

Like i said, the wording could be improved., glad that ones sorted though.

Yeah.

The wording that creates a tier of people who are “normally considered necessary” and another tier who “may still be necessary”

I know which one I’d prefer to be in if I was facing years in prison

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:30 am
I know which one I’d prefer to be in if I was facing years in prison

What have you been caught doing this time?

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:25 am Like i said, the wording could be improved., glad that ones sorted though.

I remember when MM reached the “the wording could be improved” stage on the mermaids/trans thread.
Give it a week and he’ll be at the “look I can’t be bothered to dignify this with a reply” stage, and I reckon by Easter it’ll be at the “well I’m not getting into the specifics of it but ultimately it’s been blown out of all proportion by the right” (breadcrumbed already)

Facts are chiels that winna ding. So mibees this will help.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/nat ... dent-body/

I note that the Labour minister wrote to the Sentencing Council's on 6 March voicing concerns. It appears this widely misunderstood matter is in hand.

Can you summarise what you think the misunderstanding comprises?

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:19 am I remember when MM reached the “the wording could be improved” stage on the mermaids/trans thread.
Give it a week and he’ll be at the “look I can’t be bothered to dignify this with a reply” stage, and I reckon by Easter it’ll be at the “well I’m not getting into the specifics of it but ultimately it’s been blown out of all proportion by the right” (breadcrumbed already)

But it has been blown out of all proportion and lies have been told and facts misrepresented.

You're better this, turning it into a personal vendetta against MM because he disagreed with you on your favourite thread isn't a good look.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:36 am Can you summarise what you think the misunderstanding comprises?

No. You're smart enough to understand and draw your own conclusions.

Max’yyy is, I see, already at the “pretend not to understand when a question is designed to scrutinise his own thinking” stage, but to be fair, his own journey from apparent good faith engagement to belligerence and finally to “lol you fell for my joke!” can be measured in minutes rather than weeks

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:33 am Facts are chiels that winna ding. So mibees this will help.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/nat ... dent-body/

I note that the Labour minister wrote to the Sentencing Council's on 6 March voicing concerns. It appears this widely misunderstood matter is in hand.

That’s a fact check against the political capital the Tories sought to make from the story.
That the Tories have a vested interest in overstating the nature of a proposed policy isn’t in doubt.


However, the rest of that fact check does not, in fact, substantively address what people are discussing here as the actual issue - that if there are criteria enshrined in public policy which are based around membership of an identity group or category which makes it more likely you will have your individual circumstances (implied to sometimes be related to membership of that group) - and as the fact check notes, where disqualification can be “because it’s felt that we know all we need to know about the person”, then that does in fact seem to suggest (that bad wording again!!!) that unless you are in one of those categories, you might be s*** out of luck if you want to have someone listen to you and take you seriously on mitigating circumstances.

That’s not to say that there aren’t some legitimate reasons for society to seek to avoid sending some people to prison, and to seek to make it a last resort.

But it is legitimate to say that a case should be made for how, why and when we treat people differently based on the group or category they’re in (eg pregnant women/mothers, people in poverty), rather than there being a “badly worded” policy which has the rather awkward effect of legitimising the previously batshit claims of “two tier policing”