Thread 28 Starmer - Weodmonath

[DuncinToffee]

The month of Agustus we call the weed month in our language, for these grow most in this month.”

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5371734-thread-27-starmer-hes-a-very-clever-cat?page=40&reply=146154992

Reform UK and the Conservatives have called the acquittal of suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones on charges of encouraging violent disorder after he called for far-right activists’ throats to be cut "two-tier justice" and called for government action.

This was a jury trial.

Yes, juries sometimes deliver verdicts which can seem anomalous. But I'd make three points:
• You can't really comment unless you have sat through the whole trial
• What exactly is a minister meant to do?
• As the saying goes, juries are the worst system in the world apart from all the other ones.

This is the full Conservative response to the jury verdict, and it's really not clear what they actually want. A minister to overturn the decision? Fewer jury trials? Advice to juries?

https://bsky.app/profile/peterwalker99.bsky.social/post/3lwgz6v7tts27

Juries can deliver results that are wrong and we all know that - the latest scandal being the Post office one and currently Lucy Letby.

Connelly pleaded guilty this avoiding a jury trial. Labour was right to suspend Ricky Jones. But Labour certainly have no part in the trial.

You should have posted the BBC link.

Juries can deliver results that are wrong

Especially if the prosecution stitch the defendants up (Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 among many others). However I have yet to hear of the defence being able to swing a trial ...

We need to pause, and remember that the Alice logic that the papers love to punt is to whine and whinge "We would have won if we'd got more votes" whilst acting as if somehow you did.

errr.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/tyne

I have no doubt they will post the story with a backdated timestamp to gaslight the first complainant (which won't be me this time).

But the thing is they wouldn’t let Lucy Connelly see her daughter. Let that sink in.

In line with other on remand or convicted prisoners? Or as a special punishment just for her? I think I know which one it will be, but happy to be corrected.

She was denied temporarily leave

I don’t understand.

Would it be usual for someone on arrested/remand/ convicted to be allowed to see their child or was it a special rule just made for her?
I’m not trying to be arch or awkward, I genuinely don’t know whether the circumstances of her not being allowed to see her daughter were unusual.

As they say on Bidding Room. ‘I’m out’.

Okay. I’m confused as to why and it’s too hot to go chasing around for a link to back up your claim so I’ll assume you can’t. Not a problem.

Thanks @DuncinToffee that gave me the info for a quick search. Not sure why @derxa couldn’t do that but never mind. It’s not really surprising the authorities hung back a bit given the highly charged atmosphere around her case, but I done think it was especially punitive and aimed at her “for reasons”. I’m sure some sections of society have latched onto it and made it into a huge, exaggerated deal, because that’s what they do.

I don’t have any links or anything. Why would that woman not be able to see her very upset child. (I presume). Do you think that’s in anyone’s interest?

Perhaps it was because she didn't fit the crieria- she is not the sole carer of the child?

prisonreformtrust.org.uk/adviceguide/release-on-temporary-licence-rotl/

Why would that woman not be able to see her very upset child. (I presume). Do you think that’s in anyone’s interest?
For the same reason as anyone else convicted of a crime might not be able to see their very upset child, I imagine. In fact, thinking of the impact committing a crime might have on your family, including young children who will no doubt be upset, is maybe a reason to stop and have a think before committing that crime. Imo.
Having read one of the (many) links thanks to @DuncinToffee ’s info, it looks as though the system didn’t move as fast as it could have. Like it doesn’t for many criminals, upset children or not. That’s what you gamble with when you commit a crime, which Connelly did.
Anyway, you said you were oot, so I won’t keep you.

Good point @PandoraSocks . Not sole carer, not anything special. Convicted of a crime. Happy to egg on people who were happy to try and burn human beings alive. I expect that made a few of their children upset.

No more than any other upset child whose parent has been arrested and on remand.

Not just that - they took her right to vote away.

I'm enjoying the thread which contains many posters saying we should get rid of juries. I recognise the names of some of those posters as arch Sturgeon haters... whose party has advocated that very thing for certain cases.

Labour rigged the jury, people are seriously posting that. Pandora got quite a piley on pointing out how ridiculous that is.

I haven't said it on that thread (yet) ... but I wonder how litigious Mr. Jones could be persuaded to be by a sharp libel lawyer ? If people are really convinced of their views, then they are more than free to post - and that goes for ToryHQ.

While that isn't happening, I'm not in any way defending Mr. Jones disgraceful behaviour. He's let his ward down. He's let his party down. But most importantly, he has let himself down.

It's a gorgeous August and I think the sunshine (and beers) has gone to some people's heads. Perhaps we as humans will evolve to further eradicate stupidity caused by social media overuse those people caught in the web. A bit harsh but Neanderthal may have sprinkled genes, but they were no match to homo sapiens.

Happy Friday 😊

Perhaps we as humans will evolve to further eradicate stupidity caused by social media overuse those people caught in the web.

Maybe it suits nature to allow them to be suborned by the elite ?