Thread 12 Starmer: From Prescott to Rayner, working class grit

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5203242-thread-11-starmer-will-that-phone-call-be-to-harris-or-to-trump-the-decidedly-superior-looking-cats-thread?page=40&reply=139989436

Good to see Jess Philips announcing new measures on stalking, including naming the offender. I would like it generate extra time in prison or if otherwise done on community service. The fact you have to return to court for multiple offences is bad enough without the prospect of it running concurrently.

Good stuff Labour!

Apparently a Labour source tipped off the Tories about Louise Haigh’s conviction before the election. But the Tories thought it would look bad to attack someone for a spent conviction and ignored it.

So desperate was the Labour right to stab Haigh in the back that they leaked it all over again, this time to the media.

Good stuff Labour!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36en9j3nj2o

Source, please?

You see this is why I love this country. Not some imported Royal family, or a rather contrived flag.

https://centralbylines.co.uk/lifestyle/books/a-great-british-bookshelf-revolt-buries-johnsons-unleashed/

Mel Stride defending the Rwanda Plan on Kay Burley

https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.bsky.social/post/3lcfdyd64dc2p

MS: It's Labour that wasted £710m by scrapping Rwanda.
KB: No, stop it. You couldn't send anyone there in 3 years.
MS: We were on the brink.
KB: Course you were.
MS: The planes were booked. There were migrants waiting in France for a Labour gov't.

Utterly ludicrous, gaslighting popinjay.

This is still a party that doesn't realise it lost the election.

And until it does, it can stay out of power.

It's not hard to see why Musk isn't offering them $100,000,00

More difficult to stalk someone in certain circumstances if you cannot travel there, perhaps one option for the courts should be travel bans including driving bans or passport withdrawal. Internet restrictions cannot really be enforced because of the multiple ways it is accessed.

I could not find it in my local bookshop, so I could move it to Fiction.

The right already exists. If an alleged stalker is never prosecuted they’re not a stalker. If they are prosecuted the name is public.

If someone wants the name of a person they believe is harassing them online they can apply for an order to see who it is, if a court agrees that the conduct is harassment. There’s nothing new here.

How strange that all these experts say the change is welcome.

The independent victims' commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, welcomed the changes - saying the criminal justice system had "struggled to deal robustly with stalking, leaving "offenders undeterred and victims at risk" for too long.

Emma Lingley-Clark, interim ceo at personal safety charity the Suzy Lamplugh Trust said the new protections are "urgently needed".

"We hope these changes will begin a transformation of the way all agencies work together to improve the recognition and management of stalking and better support those affected by this devastating crime," she added.

Well this is a classic Tory trick isn't it ? Announce something as "new" when it isn't.

Now that I can agree with. The Tories are terrible for it.

But Gordon Brown really mastered it with his repeated announcements about the same NHS spending. And present Labour’s playbook on bogus presentation is virtually the same as Blair’s and Brown’s.

Maybe tell that to Nicola Thorpe

https://news.sky.com/story/victims-of-online-stalking-given-right-to-know-perpetrators-identity-13265549

I think again it comes back to their belief that government is rightfully theirs and they are the natural party of government. We are just in a blip right now and natural order will be restored soon.

Experts - who needs those! As if they might know what they are talking about.

Her surname is Thorp.

I’m all in favour of throwing the book at proven stalkers. Thorp’s abuser got 30 months. He should have got ten years.

But I’m also against government bollocks - whichever government - and this “statutory guidance” is bollocks. It will make no difference.

The reason that suspects’ names are not released (for stalking or anything else) is because we give suspects rights. Including a right to privacy.

You know this is nonsense, yes? We’ve just been discussing how effective Blair’s government was in terms of presentation and comms and how awful this one is. They aren’t getting out lots of stuff they have done.
I’m glad this is cutting through a bit and happy to accept the view of experts in the field that it is helpful.

It will make no difference

according to Rummly the expert?

I know it’s not nonsense.

The fact that Starmer’s government is incompetent at comms, and much else, has nothing to do with aping New Labour’s soundbites, double-meaning, dodgy accounting, back-stabbing and all the rest of it.

As you well know, I do not hold up the Tories (or any other party) as paragons of virtue. The Tories are grubby as fuck.

I just point out that Labour are every bit as bad.

The parties divide on political policy and instinct. But they are peas in a pod when it comes to ethics, whatever Labour or Lib Dem or SNP supporters etc might kid themselves.

Her surname is Thorp.

As I said on the Brexit thread, it's a shame such attention to detail wasn't in evidence during the Brexit debate

FWIW, I voted remain.

They simply aren’t as bad. Saying so makes it look as though you are excusing the Tories whatever you say. Failure at comms is not in the same league as cheating, law breaking, lying and funnelling public cash to your mates while neglecting public services. Suggesting it is, is just silly.
If you don’t think they are effective, have a look at this checker of pledges, and remember it’s less than 5 months in.
https://pledgeprogress.co.uk

Yeah, they really are as bad.

This is the single most unpleasant thing about left-wing politics: the persistent belief that voting Labour or for some other left party is a morally better choice. It isn’t. Labour politicians’ actions and falsehoods stink as much as any others’.

If you believe in collectiveism, redistribution and the state as a worthwhile actor, knock yourself out. All good arguments.

But please don’t try to say that left-wing politics and politicians are ethically superior. That’s just nonsense.

Nobody’s said that, have they? Why are we rerunning a debate that’s been had endless times over a multitude of threads? It’s a waste of everyone’s time.