Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

If it's a re-education  program I have no problem with that, but why then mention " offenders to do volunteering and unpaid work" if you plan isn't to make people "volunteer" to drive trucks?

So prisoners have to work in prison - cleaning the jail, there's some minor industry etc - I think the alternative to that is education/qualifications.

But working outside of prison is very restricted - only low risk and open prisons. He's talking about community sentences - at the minute renovating the local rec centre etc - and saying that instead of just voluntary and unpaid work they could make people on community sentences do paid work. I don't have an issue with that - I think it should have some connection to restitution to the community and obviously they'd already need an HGV licence (though I suppose they could just drive a minibus).

As I say this is something that penal reform groups have campaigned for in this country for a while (same with allowing asylum seekers to work). It could definitely be exploitative and we need to avoid that - but the idea is I think a good one. It won't solve the crisis now, but using the crisis now to push through a positive change that might otherwise be controversial with the Mail and Tory backbenchers strikes me as not a bad idea.

[HVC]

I've addressed some of that in my edit . Basically I don't trust the government not to be dicks.

[HVC]

Looking it up getting a HGV licence takes 8 to 10 weeks. You can easily add that to the sentence time so that you have trained prisoner volunteers to fulfill all the government needs

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally re. Labour and anti-semitism/Jewish groups. The problem hasn't fully gone away thought it's now more focused on just the left.

There is an 85th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street being held by Labour folks with Corbyn speaking, as well as numerous unions, a Socialist Worker front group, the Communist Party etc. They've only invited the very fringe left Jewish Labour/left groups which supported Corbyn's leadership.

Crucially they've not invited the Jewish Labour Movement - who normally lead the march/meorial because they've been affiliated to the Labour Party since 1920 (as Poale Zion) so are one of the oldest Labour affiliates, but they literally fought the Battle of Cable Street. In 1936 they formed the Jewish Labour Council to bring together various groups of working class Jewish life (including trade unions etc) to take a more active, fighting stance against fascim including at Cable Street. Now they're not even invited

[Tamas]

I guess my problem is that in my view the prime reason and benefit of criminal punishment is to discourage others from ever committing a crime, rather than rehabilitation of the criminals themselves, although that is obviously a benefit, if achievable.

Yeah I don't believe in punishment as deterrence at all.

I am not saying there aren't (severely) diminishing returns when you raise the severity of punishment but surely there is a statistical subset of people who would engage in criminal activity if they could do so without consequence, but decide not to because they might get punished? If yes, then deterrence works.

A mild example that jumped to my mind is drunk driving in Hungary. It used to be a huge problem while we had rules that allowed X amount of blood alcohol. Then this allowed amount was reduced to what's practically zero, and fines /possible sentencing was increased majorly as well. It resulted in a huge drop in drunk driving accidents. They still happen obviously, but far less.

The real challenge with deterrence is where to draw the line on it where it won't infringe on personal freedom and the rule of law (i.e. not giving the state BS excuses to harass people), not whether it works or not, IMHO. 

[Tamas]

Looking it up getting a HGV licence takes 8 to 10 weeks. You can easily add that to the sentence time so that you have trained prisoner volunteers to fulfill all the government needs

Also don't forget that just with an HGV licence you can't drive tankers. So we'll need to limit this to sufficiently serious crimes.

[Sheilbh]

I've addressed some of that in my edit . Basically I don't trust the government not to be dicks.

Fair and you shouldn't - but it's not a thing yet in the UK because we don't have chain gangs (various governments introduce and then phase out making people doing community service wear high-vis jackets). But also the Prison Service is incredibly risk averse so of the about 80-85,000 prisoners in this country only 3,000 are allowed to work in the community.

It would be a huge shift of mindset (but one I think is necessary) to shift that and we get scandals whenever a prisoner on day release commits a crime - in the UK I think the risk of that media storm far outweighs the benefits government may feel from forcing prisoners into HGV training schools/jobs.

The low numbers are another reason it isn't going to help solve this crisis - but I think as a route for prisoners is a good idea.

[Sheilbh]

I am not saying there aren't (severely) diminishing returns when you raise the severity of punishment but surely there is a statistical subset of people who would engage in criminal activity if they could do so without consequence, but decide not to because they might get punished? If yes, then deterrence works.

A mild example that jumped to my mind is drunk driving in Hungary. It used to be a huge problem while we had rules that allowed X amount of blood alcohol. Then this allowed amount was reduced to what's practically zero, and fines /possible sentencing was increased majorly as well. It resulted in a huge drop in drunk driving accidents. They still happen obviously, but far less.

The real challenge with deterrence is where to draw the line on it where it won't infringe on personal freedom and the rule of law (i.e. not giving the state BS excuses to harass people), not whether it works or not, IMHO.

Yeah - and I think drink driving is a really good example. There was similar here - as well as infamously hard-hittng advert campaigns every Christmas.

I think you're probably right and (if you can believe this!) I may have been too strident

But I don't think sentencing has much of an issue on deterrence itself; I think there may be more of an issue in the overall impression of whether a crime is taken seriously or not. So drink driving went from almost an acceptable crime that was tolerated to something that was not socially tolerated anymore and subject to strict sentencing. There is an element of deterrence there, but I don't think, for example, the gradations of sentencing for different types of theft or assualt make a difference.

[Josquius]

I don't have 2 hours to spare to go through it all but I'm not sure what to make of Starmers speech. I'm seeing stuff from the Guardian popping up saying it proves he's a dead man walking and Labour are already lining up the next leader, totally out of touch and rubbish.... and then others heralding it as just the right thing.

I do like that they're bringing reality back to the conversation- attacking the Tories for having 11 years to sort shit out and just making it worse. Brown and Blair actually being pretty good for normal people. And so on.

Alas I'm also seeing a lot of bollocks about a throw away comment he made that trans people have medical problems too. Pff.

Best this could do is scrape the bottom of the barrel. We have been assured lack of drivers is a Europe-wide issue and not a Brexit thing so why would European drivers come here leaving their high-demand jobs for a couple of months of relocating to the UK, and why would ROTW drivers come here for a few months instead of getting visas in Europe?

Brexit's obviously a big part of it because we don't have freedom of movement.

I agree with the European Haulage Association guy that it's unlikely EU drivers would do it because there is a heightened demand and a shortage across the EU and it's a hassle.

For the ROTW - that depends on whether there are equivalent visa schemes in the rest of Europe, I'm not sure if there are. Then I'd imagine it's a question of which option pays best. From what I understand market rates are around £8-10k for two months at the minute - that might not be enough or it might be, I'm not sure. I don't think 5,000 drivers will make a huge difference though. For what it's worth, I believe the visa story has been picked up in the Turkish press so that's probably where I'd target if I was running an agency.

Excellent.
Replacing Poles with full employment rights demanding fair wages with Turks on semi-slavery temporary contracts accepting well under the going rate. That's definitely what the brexiters voted for.

[Sheilbh]

Excellent.
Replacing Poles with full employment rights demanding fair wages with Turks on semi-slavery temporary contracts accepting well under the going rate. That's definitely what the brexiters voted for.

Truck drivers have only just started to benefit from the EU posted workers rules so they can, in certain circumstances, access full employment rights in the country they're working in. But until now that wasn't the case - which is why so many companies were based in Poland and Lithuania (often employing Ukrainians) but then used on jobs across Europe.

But definitely there's a huge risk around exploitative labour by agency - literally just yesterday there was a bit dawn raid in London and Romania that arrested 10-5 people (with hundreds of thousands of Euros etc) for modern slavery crimes and had released/freed 50-60 Romanian men and boys who were being used as modern slaves in the construction sector. A crisis like this in a sector with limited regulatory oversight and bosses with a history of exploitation (like construction) is definitely a big risk

Edit:

I don't have 2 hours to spare to go through it all but I'm not sure what to make of Starmers speech. I'm seeing stuff from the Guardian popping up saying it proves he's a dead man walking and Labour are already lining up the next leader, totally out of touch and rubbish.... and then others heralding it as just the right thing.

Yeah - the left are pretty unhappy

Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
Keir Starmer is dishonest, unprincipled, uncharismatic and unelectable.

His leadership offers no vision for the country, and his followers are driven entirely by factional spite.

My column on why he has to go - or Tory hegemony will prevail.

I'm not entirely convinced by Jones' history of challenging Tory hegemony

[Jacob]

Incidentally re. Labour and anti-semitism/Jewish groups. The problem hasn't fully gone away thought it's now more focused on just the left.

There is an 85th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street being held by Labour folks with Corbyn speaking, as well as numerous unions, a Socialist Worker front group, the Communist Party etc. They've only invited the very fringe left Jewish Labour/left groups which supported Corbyn's leadership.

Crucially they've not invited the Jewish Labour Movement - who normally lead the march/meorial because they've been affiliated to the Labour Party since 1920 (as Poale Zion) so are one of the oldest Labour affiliates, but they literally fought the Battle of Cable Street. In 1936 they formed the Jewish Labour Council to bring together various groups of working class Jewish life (including trade unions etc) to take a more active, fighting stance against fascim including at Cable Street. Now they're not even invited

That's pretty wild.

Seems to me that the Jewish Labour Movement should hold their own celebration - "we did this" - and invite appropriate guests.

[Tamas]

[Sheilbh]

I am once again asking for Cressida Dick to resign. It is an issue that this isn't even the worst story about the Met today - but there's no need to change the leadership

Judges criticise Met police after woman wins spy cop case
Tribunal rules in favour of Kate Wilson over breach of human rights, citing 'lamentable failings'


Kate Wilson, an environmental activist deceived into a nearly two-year relationship with an undercover officer, outside the tribunal where she has won a landmark case against the Met. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Rob Evans
@robevansgdn
Thu 30 Sep 2021 15.14 BST

Police have been been severely criticised by judges who ruled that they grossly violated the human rights of a woman who was deceived into a long-term intimate relationship by an undercover officer.

The judges ruled overwhelmingly in favour of Kate Wilson, an environmental and social justice activist, who has pursued a decade-long campaign to uncover the truth.

In their landmark judgment on Thursday, the three judges in the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) ruled that the Metropolitan police had violated Wilson's human rights in five ways, including inflicting degrading treatment on her.

Mark Kennedy, an undercover officer who infiltrated leftwing groups for seven years, had a sexual relationship with Wilson lasting more than a year, without telling her that he was a police officer who had been sent to spy on her and the political groups she supported.

The judges ruled that senior officers in charge of Kennedy "either knew of the relationship, chose not to know of its existence, or were incompetent and negligent in not following up" clear and obvious signs.

In their 158-page ruling, they said the senior officers appeared to have a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" towards their spies who were deceiving women into sexual relationships. They said the managers probably had "a lack of interest" in protecting women's human rights.

After the ruling, Wilson said: "The events in my case happened years ago. However, the failure of the police to protect women from sexual predators within their own ranks, and police attempts to criminalise protesters are both still very live issues today. The tribunal has gone some way towards recognising how deep the abuses run."

Colin Boyd, the tribunal's vice-president, and two other judges, said: "Were it not for [Wilson's] tenacity and perseverance, often in the face of formidable difficulties, much of what this case has revealed would not have come to light." She fought a large part of case herself as she could not afford lawyers.

The judges said she had uncovered a "formidable list" of human rights violations, adding that supervision of the covert operation was "fatally flawed", could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society, and was characterised by "disturbing and lamentable failings at the most fundamental levels".

Wilson is the first woman deceived by an undercover officer to take her case to the IPT, which examines allegations of abuses by the state. Other women have won compensation and apologies from the police after pursuing legal action in the civil courts.

Wilson had began a relationship with Kennedy in November 2003, shortly after he began his seven-year deployment spying on leftwing groups. Their relationship ended in February 2005.

She discovered his true identity in 2010 after he was unmasked by activists. He was one of 139 undercover police officers who have spied on more than 1,000 political groups since 1968.

Many deceived women into relationships while they were undercover. Kennedy had numerous relationships during his deployment, including one that lasted six years.

Police chiefs have claimed their undercover officers were not allowed to form sexual relationships with women they were spying on. The tribunal ruled that this claim was "materially undermined by the sheer frequency with which Kennedy (and other undercover officers ) did conduct sexual relationships without either questions being asked or action being taken by senior officers.

"We are driven to the conclusion that either senior officers were quite extraordinarily naïve, totally unquestioning, or chose to turn a blind eye to conduct which was, certainly in the case of Kennedy, useful to the operation."

Wilson is to be awarded compensation at a hearing next year.

In a statement, the Metropolitan police and the National Police Chiefs' Council said: "We accept and recognise the gravity of all of the breaches of Ms Wilson's human rights as found by the tribunal, and the Met and NPCC unreservedly apologise to Ms Wilson for the damage caused."

[Josquius]

Truck drivers have only just started to benefit from the EU posted workers rules so they can, in certain circumstances, access full employment rights in the country they're working in. But until now that wasn't the case - which is why so many companies were based in Poland and Lithuania (often employing Ukrainians) but then used on jobs across Europe.

But definitely there's a huge risk around exploitative labour by agency - literally just yesterday there was a bit dawn raid in London and Romania that arrested 10-5 people (with hundreds of thousands of Euros etc) for modern slavery crimes and had released/freed 50-60 Romanian men and boys who were being used as modern slaves in the construction sector. A crisis like this in a sector with limited regulatory oversight and bosses with a history of exploitation (like construction) is definitely a big risk

Yeah that's a key part of the truck driver shortage that a lot of people aren't getting. It's not foreigners working in the UK for UK companies that are hurting - though that isn't helping. Rather it's foreign truck companies being able to send stuff direct to destinations in the UK.

[Duque de Bragança]

Since Sheilbh likes UK memes: