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

OK. Fair enough. But then these threads that constantly big-up Labour and attack the Tories just say the same things again and again, don’t they?

I refer you to my point about things being announced as new over and over again. Coupled with an selective obsession with history ... lets forget what happened in 2010-2024, and really examine 1997-2010 in painstaking forensic detail just in case we missed something the previous 10,000 times shall we ?

You'll need to link to these threads then .....

But the “14 years” is ok, isn’t it? Why not 20 years or 25 years?

You’re on it now.

I didn’t say that.
I said this particular government is better than the current Tories, for reasons we all know well.
It’s pointless. You keep arguing with yourself. I think I’m going to just add you to the list of people I don’t bother responding to.

Too early to ask for new thread title suggestions?

Now Rummly is on her soapbox

Starmer: will he ever find the number of a good comms director?

Whoosh.

Oi! I only stand on Louis Vuitton luggage.

That’s hardly a whoosh.

Unless you’re being self-deprecating. In which case, props - as my kids used to say 👍

Interesting news from over here in Wales.
Welsh Tory leader Andrew RT Davies resigns https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8nmn4n01no

He says a ‘substantial minority’ of the Senedd Tory group don't support him. I hate to tell him but a substantial majority of Welsh people aren’t fussed either…

How odd. Well let’s wait as I assume there is a bigger story here.

As for statutory guidance, this is a useful thing because it reminds agencies of what they should and can do. Having to work through an overstretched system where people don’t readily know what should happen is addressed by statutory guidance and is operationally effective. This is Labour effectively saying that they do care about people in this process, and it’s a good thing. Being sour and saying it won’t do anything misses the point - public services will use it to help people understand what rights and what they can expect. It’s not reasonable to expect ordinary people to have to pour through technical points of law in order to understand what protection they can receive, particularly at a distressing time.

So yes, good stuff Labour. Glad you got on with it.

The courts have some of these powers but they are rarely used. I would like them to look at more routine use. Good thought

On Politics Live now. The Greek PM (?) and Keir Starmer on the steps of No 10. A journalist yells. ‘Are you losing your marbles Keir Starmer?’ 🤣

So reading the Times coverage on the right to know it looks like there are some other changes -

• publishing new data on stalking offences to inform policy and policing decisions and
• setting out national standards on stalking perpetrator programmes to ensure consistency across England and Wales
• a review of existing legislation to see whether it needs changing to better support the police to identify and arrest stalkers
• a new power for the courts to impose stalking protection orders, which ban suspects from going within a certain distance of their alleged victims or contacting them.
• Linked to the above Judges will be given the power to impose an order on an individual even after an acquittal if there is enough evidence to suggest that they are still a risk to the victim (so the police dont have to apply for the order - removes an administrative step). The orders will also compel offenders to attend a perpetrator programme to address the root causes of their behaviour.

www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/stalking-victims-suspect-name-arrest-lm28dh0tc

i think the person losing his marbles over the marbles will be George Osborne!

Ooh, that’ll make DH’s day. I think he detests RT even more than BJ.

Yes, Jess Phillips mentioned some of that this morning on R4. My directorate includes our stalking perpetrator service. They work closely with the police. And they agree this will bring improvements; but what do they know. They're only experts.
Additionally this morning's Guardian has an article on this making it clear that these changes are only a start.

But it's Labour doing it, so it must be bad.

The first three points are ‘whatever 🤷‍♀️’. Meaningless.

The fourth is rubbish: the power has existed for nearly 30 years.

The last is legal nonsense. If a person is found not guilty of criminally stalking or of harassment they cannot be subject to any sort of exclusion order unless the victim brings a separate civil claim and gets judgment in their favour. The government cannot change the way the law works - at least not without a mighty piece of primary legislation.

I have said, I detest stalkers and harassers. But this is pathetic grandstanding by Jess Phillips.

From the Times article I linked to (wrongly assuming people would read it).

'Other changes include a new power for the courts to impose stalking protection orders, which ban suspects from going within a certain distance of their alleged victims or contacting them.

Judges will be given the power to impose an order on an individual even after an acquittal if there is enough evidence to suggest that they are still a risk to the victim. The orders will also compel offenders to attend a perpetrator programme to address the root causes of their behaviour.
Currently, it is up to the police to apply to magistrates for a stalking protection order — a civil order which it is a criminal offence to breach. Prosecutors cannot apply. This has led to some convicted stalkers continuing to contact their victims from prison, because the courts have no ability to impose such orders at the time of conviction or sentencing.
The bureaucratic hurdles involved in asking the police to make an application after conviction often leads to a delay in implementing the orders or a failure to do so at all.'

Do you not like evidence?

Apparently not. Facts are for pedants.

Facts are for lefties 😆

Excellent news 🎉

Can't stand the idiot, so glad to see the back of him.