Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

I don't know.  Something.  As a set-off against the amount of metaphorical self-flagellation that Britain as a whole must endure for its complicity in the slave trade.

Deciding to take down - for example - a statue of a guy who made huge profits from the slave trade because that doesn't conform to our social values - even if he did build some libraries and an orphanage with some of the profits - doesn't count as "metaphorical self-flagellation" IMO.

[Tamas]

I don't know.  Something.  As a set-off against the amount of metaphorical self-flagellation that Britain as a whole must endure for its complicity in the slave trade.

Deciding to take down - for example - a statue of a guy who made huge profits from the slave trade because that doesn't conform to our social values - even if he did build some libraries and an orphanage with some of the profits - doesn't count as "metaphorical self-flagellation" IMO.

For the record I specifically mentioned that in my post as a thing I agree with.

In general, putting up statues of real people is stupid.

[Tamas]

Great optics for the "people should accept they are poorer" thing is Barclays' 27% profit increase last quarter. Mostly from credit cards as I understand. So clearly people have not accepted being poorer just yet, and bankers were not ready to cut into their profits for the common good either. But of course the BoE people have been calling on only one of those two groups to make sacrifices.

[Josquius]

Great optics for the "people should accept they are poorer" thing is Barclays' 27% profit increase last quarter. Mostly from credit cards as I understand. So clearly people have not accepted being poorer just yet, and bankers were not ready to cut into their profits for the common good either. But of course the BoE people have been calling on only one of those two groups to make sacrifices.

He did say someone has to take the hit. That someone is clearly barclays et al.

Especially sad to see such big profits for them considering the amount of closures they're conducting.

[Sheilbh]

Richard Sharp has quit as BBC Chair after the report into his conduct (arranging a massive loan for Boris Johnson) found that it created a "potential perceived conflict of interest".

Fair to say it's been a pretty ignominious and short term.

He should have stepped down as soon as the story broke because I'm not convinced you need a report from a KC to work that out

Edit: Still, nice work if you can get it for that barrister

[Sheilbh]

Some big criminal justice reform proposals from the Scottish government (which would make their criminal law system look a lot more English, ironically ). Don't know if he looks at this thread but I'd be interested to see Beeb's take:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
Some legal professionals oppose the scrapping of the not proven verdict

The controversial not proven verdict is to be scrapped in Scottish courts as part of sweeping reforms to the country's justice system.

The measures will also see the number of jurors in criminal trials reduced from 15 to 12.

And a pilot will be held that would see rape and attempted rape trials be held without a jury.

Not proven is one of three verdicts that can be returned in Scotland, alongside guilty and not guilty.

The implications of a case being found not proven are exactly the same as not guilty and the accused is innocent in the eyes of the law.

But there has been concern that it can be confusing for juries and the public.

Critics of the verdict also say it can stigmatise an accused person by appearing not to completely clear them and that it can fail to provide closure for victims.

However some legal experts believe it can offer additional protection to an accused person by helping to ensure that they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.

And the Law Society of Scotland has warned there could be an increase in miscarriages of justice if not proven is scrapped.

Not proven is unique to Scots law, with other legal systems only having two possible verdicts rather than three, and discussions about whether or not to keep it have been going on for years.

The verdict can trace its roots back to the 17th Century, but despite being available in all criminal cases there is no definition of not proven, or the difference between it and a not guilty verdict.

A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials.

It also highlighted inconsistent views on the meaning of not proven and how it differed from not guilty.

The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict.

The proposal to abolish the verdict is contained in a new bill published by the Scottish government which would see the most radical shake-up of the country's justice system in decades if it is passed.

The measures include reducing the number of people who sit on a jury from 15 to 12, which would bring Scotland into line with England.

At least eight of the 12 jurors will need to agree that the accused is guilty for them to be convicted rather than the current simple majority of eight out of 15.

A new specialist sexual offences court will be created and a pilot project will see rape and attempted rape cases being held without a jury, with a single judge deciding whether or not the accused is guilty.

Analysis box by David Cowan, Home affairs correspondent, BBC Scotland

The big surprise in these proposals is a change which could make it harder to get convictions.

A simple majority is required for a guilty verdict in a Scottish court, which currently means eight out of 15 jurors.

While the Scottish government is proposing that juries should be reduced to 12, the rule on majority verdicts will stay the same.

That means prosecutors will have to convince eight out of 12 people that they have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Presumably this is being done to placate defence lawyers who see the abolition of not proven as the removal of a safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

This is the only measure in the bill which has not been welcomed by Rape Crisis Scotland. It says this could have a significant impact on convictions.

The move is aimed at increasing the country's low conviction rate for serious sexual offences.

Only about half of rape and attempted rape trials result in a conviction. The overall conviction rate in trials is about 90%.

Rape and attempted rape trials have also been far more likely to end in a not proven verdict that trials for other offences.

There were 2,176 rapes and attempted rapes reported to the police in 2020/21, but only 152 prosecutions and just 78 convictions.

'The jury was very intimidating'

Katie Johnston survived a brutal rape in Aberdeen's Union Terrace Gardens in January 2016, after a night out with friends.

Her attacker, Alasdair McDonald, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in jail.

She welcomed the introduction of judge-only trials in rape and attempted rape cases, and said this would have been "much less daunting" than giving evidence to a jury.

"Talking about my case in front of 15 members of the jury was very intimidating. You've got 15 faces looking at you," she said.

She noticed changes in body language and facial expressions from the members of the jury which made her feel like she had said "something wrong".

Ms Johnston also welcomed the decision to scrap the not proven verdict, and said she would have been "devastated" if that had been the outcome in her case.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance said that victims of sexual abuse "must be supported to have trust and confidence that the processes of justice will serve their needs, allow them to give their best evidence and support them in their recovery."

Rape Crisis chief executive Sandy Brindley welcomed the majority of the proposed reforms, which she said "could bring about a transformative change in improving legal responses to rape".

She said there was "overwhelming evidence" that jury members are influenced by "rape myths" - such as assumptions that victims would always fight back, their attacker would be a stranger, or that they would report the incident immediately.

Analysis box by Kirsten Campbell, political correspondent, Scotland

The Scottish government tried to introduce judge only, or juryless trials during the Covid pandemic. But there was such an outcry the plan had to be scrapped.

This pilot will be no less controversial.

But ministers point out that the right to a fair trial does not necessarily mean the right to a jury trial.

In fact in 2019-20 just 16% of criminal cases were heard by a jury. 84% were less serious, or summary cases, which were dealt with by a justice of the peace or a sheriff.

The key factor at play here is conviction rates. They're around 88% for all crime, but only 43% for rape and attempted rape.

The pilot of single judge rape trials is still some way off, but it will see how effective they are and how they work in practice, rather than in theory, for complainers, the accused and their lawyers.

Ms Brindley added: "What we know is that many women in particular are being failed by the justice system and I have no doubt that guilty men are walking free. I think we need to do something about that."

Defence lawyer Tommy Ross KC challenged the assumption that there is something wrong with the conviction rate and warned of a possible backlash against the proposals.

He said: "The conviction rate should match exactly the number of cases which are proved beyond reasonable doubt and the people who work in the criminal justice system believe that that test has been met.

"If our judges have faith in our juries then I expect our judges to come out fighting for the jury system.

"It has been abolished in Russia, it was abolished in Nazi Germany. I don't expect the jury system to be abolished in Scotland."

Got to be honest my interpretation of "not proven" has always been the same as the general public - it's the jury saying we think you did it, but we don't think the prosecution have produced enough evidence to convict. So in that sense I think it is probably helpful for defendants and maybe helps prevent some miscarriages of justice, but I can see how that would be a particular problem with sexual crimes.

Edit: Although the jury bar would still be lower than England - I think in general judges instruct juries that they need to be unanimous. But they can except a 10-2 or 11-1 verdict after the jury's deliberated - I think in theory they need to have considered for at least half a day but in practice, judges won't allow a majority verdict that quickly and will judge it based on the size and complexity of the case.

Edit: Also reports lawyers are planning to boycott jury-less trials, so that element of the reform may collapse.

[Jacob]

For the record I specifically mentioned that in my post as a thing I agree with.

In general, putting up statues of real people is stupid.

So noted 

But that leaves me wondering, what forms does this alleged "self-flagellation" take? If it's not removing statues (and renaming public streets / university buildings, which I put in the same category), what does it actually entail?

[Tamas]

For the record I specifically mentioned that in my post as a thing I agree with.

In general, putting up statues of real people is stupid.

So noted 

But that leaves me wondering, what forms does this alleged "self-flagellation" take? If it's not removing statues (and renaming public streets / university buildings, which I put in the same category), what does it actually entail?

Apologising for actions perpetrated by others 400 years ago.

[crazy canuck]

For the record I specifically mentioned that in my post as a thing I agree with.

In general, putting up statues of real people is stupid.

So noted 

But that leaves me wondering, what forms does this alleged "self-flagellation" take? If it's not removing statues (and renaming public streets / university buildings, which I put in the same category), what does it actually entail?

Apologising for actions perpetrated by others 400 years ago.

If it is the same entity that committed or was related to the wrong, an apology is appropriate.  If it is not the same entity because the entity no longer exists, it is entirely appropriate for others to observe that what was done was wrong and to offer apologies to the group who has suffered as a result of the wrongdoing.  If the entity still exists and has not apologized, it is entirely appropriate to call them out for failing to do so.

[Tamas]

For the record I specifically mentioned that in my post as a thing I agree with.

In general, putting up statues of real people is stupid.

So noted 

But that leaves me wondering, what forms does this alleged "self-flagellation" take? If it's not removing statues (and renaming public streets / university buildings, which I put in the same category), what does it actually entail?

Apologising for actions perpetrated by others 400 years ago.

If it is the same entity that committed or was related to the wrong, an apology is appropriate.  If it is not the same entity because the entity no longer exists, it is entirely appropriate for others to observe that what was done was wrong and to offer apologies to the group who has suffered as a result of the wrongdoing.  If the entity still exists and has not apologized, it is entirely appropriate to call them out for failing to do so.

Sure but contributing to the arbitrary skin-colour based separation and singling-out feels wrong. "yes, you get an apology for the suffering of your ancestors because we see you are of African descent. Descendants of all the raped-pillaged Irish don't get this because who the hell knows which one was involved. Descendants of serfs oppressed and practically enslaved by the families who still are the richest and most powerful in the country - again we can't really single them out by skin colour so there you go."

However their ancestors arrived in the country, they are the same kind of Brits (or Americans) as others. That should be the message. But, again, I am not going to push this and ready to accept I am wrong.

[Jacob]

Apologising for actions perpetrated by others 400 years ago.

What are you referring to from 400 years ago? I think the slave trade was only stopped (in the UK) in 1807 and 1808 (in the US), so that's more like 220 years ago.

And like... if King Charles apologizes for his family's involvement in slavery I wouldn't consider it self-flagellation for me or for anyone other than his family. And I'm not sure it even would consider it self-flagellation for his family. If the involvement is factual (and I think it is), then it's a fact. And it's worth acknowledging both those facts and that they are shitty.

There's also the part where it's not so much a discrete event that ended even ~220 years ago. The repercussions of Black chattel slavery are still being felt. The last child of an American slave died just last year and the social repercussions of the slave trade are still very much topical today.

BTW, the article is an interesting read IMO. Two passages that stood out to me:

His father also linked him to some of the darkest times in American history.

"I remember hearing about two slaves who were chained together at the wrist and tried to run away," Mr. Smith told The Economist in 2021, recounting his father's stories. "They were found by some vicious dogs hiding under a tree, and hanged from it."

Daniel Smith encountered vicious racism as well. When he was working at a Y.M.C.A. camp in Connecticut in the mid-1950s, he saw a white woman being pulled from a flooded quarry, unconscious but alive. He began to apply CPR, but a white police officer ordered him to stop. While Mr. Smith stared back, incredulously, the woman died.

Locally - in Canada - we don't have such a focus on slavery. Here it's more about our First Nations... and the things that are apologized for is usually stuff that happened in living memory (or is still happening). It's the real consequences, today, that are driving the conversations and apologies.

I mean... I get why it can feel like a non-stop barrage of apolgies and self-flagellation on a superficial level. I feel like that too sometimes. But personally I've found if you dig into any given conversation, there's almost always real substance there - and things like the slave trade, residential schools, the Indian Act, segregation and so on have caused real harm that continues to this day. IMO brushing it off as "this is in the past, let's just ignore it - oh, and why don't you just get your shit together and stop whining" is simply not right (even if I sometimes do feel like that myself).

[Sheilbh]

There have been formal apologies in relation to Ireland - but again more in living memory stuff. Blair also formally apologised for the British state's role in slavery in 2007 on the 200th anniversary of abolition as part of a visit to West Africa.

But there's lots of stuff that hints at but stops short of an apology which makes me think it must be meaningful. Charles has previously expressed deep regret and called slavery an "appalling atrocity" with enduring impact and that we must find ways to "acknowledge our past" (my guess is that's as far as the government/civil service will let him go), which is not a million miles from the language Cameron used when visitng Jallianwala Bagh. For me it's almost because they precisely stop short of an apology that makes me think there is value in an apology.

[crazy canuck]

For the record I specifically mentioned that in my post as a thing I agree with.

In general, putting up statues of real people is stupid.

So noted 

But that leaves me wondering, what forms does this alleged "self-flagellation" take? If it's not removing statues (and renaming public streets / university buildings, which I put in the same category), what does it actually entail?

Apologising for actions perpetrated by others 400 years ago.

If it is the same entity that committed or was related to the wrong, an apology is appropriate.  If it is not the same entity because the entity no longer exists, it is entirely appropriate for others to observe that what was done was wrong and to offer apologies to the group who has suffered as a result of the wrongdoing.  If the entity still exists and has not apologized, it is entirely appropriate to call them out for failing to do so.

Sure but contributing to the arbitrary skin-colour based separation and singling-out feels wrong. "yes, you get an apology for the suffering of your ancestors because we see you are of African descent. Descendants of all the raped-pillaged Irish don't get this because who the hell knows which one was involved. Descendants of serfs oppressed and practically enslaved by the families who still are the richest and most powerful in the country - again we can't really single them out by skin colour so there you go."

However their ancestors arrived in the country, they are the same kind of Brits (or Americans) as others. That should be the message. But, again, I am not going to push this and ready to accept I am wrong.

I don't think apologies are being made on that basis, but rather on the basis that the negative effects of the acts being apologized for continue to have an impact on those receiving.  Jacob's reference to the indigenous communities in Canada are a good example.

[Barrister]

Some big criminal justice reform proposals from the Scottish government (which would make their criminal law system look a lot more English, ironically ). Don't know if he looks at this thread but I'd be interested to see Beeb's take:
<snip>

Got to be honest my interpretation of "not proven" has always been the same as the general public - it's the jury saying we think you did it, but we don't think the prosecution have produced enough evidence to convict. So in that sense I think it is probably helpful for defendants and maybe helps prevent some miscarriages of justice, but I can see how that would be a particular problem with sexual crimes.

Edit: Although the jury bar would still be lower than England - I think in general judges instruct juries that they need to be unanimous. But they can except a 10-2 or 11-1 verdict after the jury's deliberated - I think in theory they need to have considered for at least half a day but in practice, judges won't allow a majority verdict that quickly and will judge it based on the size and complexity of the case.

Edit: Also reports lawyers are planning to boycott jury-less trials, so that element of the reform may collapse.

SO I've many times had to explain to victims (and yes often sexual assault victims) that "not guilty" doesn't mean the judge or jury didn't believe you.  Indeed when you listen to most decisions (only from a judge, juries don't give decisions) it's rare for a judge to exonerate an Accused and say they didn't do it - usually it's just that it wasn't proven sufficiently.  So in that was a "not proven" verdict kind of appeals to me.  But yes I can also see how it might be confusing to a lay jury.

Juries of 15 rather than 12 - whatever.  But it does surprise me greatly that a simple majority is enough in Scotland.

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces the number of jury trials.  I've run jury trials (but not many) and there is something awesome (in the older meaning of the word) about being judged by 12 of your peers.  Juries (in my experience) take their duties very seriously.

But the system here at least is just choking on the volume, and a jury trial takes vastly more time than a judge alone trial.  If you value a right to a speedy trial then limiting jury trials is an important step.

[Jacob]

Sure but contributing to the arbitrary skin-colour based separation and singling-out feels wrong. "yes, you get an apology for the suffering of your ancestors because we see you are of African descent. Descendants of all the raped-pillaged Irish don't get this because who the hell knows which one was involved. Descendants of serfs oppressed and practically enslaved by the families who still are the richest and most powerful in the country - again we can't really single them out by skin colour so there you go."

Here's the thing thought - the apology is the lowest and least significant of potential actions taken regarding past wrongs. An apology is only a big deal if you don't get (or have to give) anything else.

The Irish population has certainly had a hard time historically (though slave taking, raiding, reaping, and  was - I think - pretty universal and not just the province of the "big name" groups - Irish pirates and slavers were a thing too) - but I think that by pretty much any measure the process of addressing past wrongs committed against the Irish is further along than addressing the wrongs of the Black slave trade or colonization of American First Nations.

As for the repercussions of serfdom and the continued generational advantages from the  exploitation done by the upper classes I agree that's almost completely normalized when it probably shouldn't be - but I think that perspective is entirely too "class war" for most of the public in this day and age.

However their ancestors arrived in the country, they are the same kind of Brits (or Americans) as others. That should be the message. But, again, I am not going to push this and ready to accept I am wrong.

I think that's a nice sentiment (as long as folks can hang on to their culture to the degree they want), but the key distinction is whether that's because the specific population group no longer suffers significant repercussions from bad shit having been done to them, or because they're told "shut up about the bad shit that was done, it's in the past. We should all ignore the repercussions that are still ongoing, and excuse away discrimination that still occurs and agree it doesn't matter."