Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I'm not sure I'm getting your point, Valmy...?

I think you are making the mistake of assuming he has one.

I am curious:  do you think that this kind of catty remark adds anything to the discussion, or even the forum?

I don't think people posting nonsensical things adds much either.

The UK is up in arms about Sarah Everard's death because of a low murder rate? 

[Threviel]

Also, thinking about it, it's not just a rape/abduction/murder problem. Lots of women feel very exposed in their daily lives. Every time they talk to a man they might feel vulnerable.

A thing I noticed at the kindergarten where I have my kids. It is a totally non-sexual environment with lots of kids around. Yet, some of the women there wrap their clothes around them as soon as I enter a room, they put their arms under their breasts and so on. When there's activities with all parents present they obviously seem to be uncomfortable experiencing a "male gaze". And this is not something that's to do with me, as soon as I started noticing this behaviour I see it everywhere, as soon as a man is present many women feel exposed and vulnerable just by the sheer presence of a man.

And this happens in kindergartens, schools, shops, well everywhere. There are male-free gyms just so that women can be at a place and feel comfortable. If they are attractive it's just worse, cat calls and unwanted attention everywhere.

So no wonder that women are fed up, many of them can't leave their house without always feeling uncomfortable.

And this in Sweden which is probably one of the best places around to be a woman in.

[Syt]

This is making the rounds on Twitter, suggesting that a law is to be changed to offer 10 years in prison for being a "serious annoyance" to "a section of the public".



Also something (separately from this) about getting tough on single person protests?

[Tamas]

Well, I hope this is fake because this could be a wonderfully flexible tool to silence anyone inconvenient.

[celedhring]

Well, I presume that there's loads of jurisprudence setting the bar for what "serious annoyance" is in respect to this law, and it's hopefully a high bar.

[Sheilbh]

Well, I presume that there's loads of jurisprudence setting the bar for what "serious annoyance" is in respect to this law, and it's hopefully a high bar.

Yeah - it's very illiberal legislation, but weirdly I don't actually think that bit's the worst.

There is already a common law offence of public nuisance - nuisance and annoyance are from in land law and relate to your ability to enjoy or use your property.

The key thing that strikes me from that is that "serious harm" includes property damage (which doesn't need to be serious) and, as highlighted, serious annoyance/nuisance/inconvenience. There is a defence of reasonable excuse, but the burden of proof is on the defendent (but only on a it is more likely than not basis, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt).

But Joshua Rozenberg did a very interesting example of a recent conviction and appeal under the common law of public nuisance. It was about Extinction Rebellion protesters who blocked traffic around a fracking site. They climbed on lorries that carried specialist equipment and were in traffic - so the lorries couldn't just drive on and some of the protesters (including the three convicted) stayed on the lorries for three days. This caused some disturbance to the traffic but that was addressed by the police establishing a contraflow later that day. The three who were charged were convicted of public nuisance and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal overturned it - I think they were given community service instead. Basically they noted that at common law "it is well established that committing crimes, at least non-violent crimes, in the course of peaceful protest does not generally impute high levels of culpability." They quoted an earlier case about civil disobedience that "It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind. But there are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other. The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law. The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account." And noted that basically if protesters don't cause "excessive" damage or inconvenience, the courts take a "relatively benign" approach to sentencing in part because "the value of the right to freedom of expression finds its voice in the approach to sentencing."

This bit of the law makes a prison sentence far more likely, and far more serious - it's unlikely the Court of Appeal would overturn the decision for those three ER protesters, for example. It's also got a serious maximum sentence which is a sign that parliament take this offence seriously and it maybe slightly expands the offence itself. I wouldn't actually worry about serious nuisance/annoyance/inconvenience (though they sound scarier) - similarly I wouldn't worry too much about the "section of the public" (for example protesting an abortion clinic or a church only affects a section of the public - blocking a road affects all the public), the bit I find most chilling in that is that it's any damage to property not just serious or excessive damage.

For what it's worth that's the bit doing the rounds - the bit of this law (from the legal press/human rights lawyers) that worries me most is around police powers. They're flagging that in public order law generally the law places a lot of responsibility and trust on the senior officers on the ground - basically the theory is that they are best placed to judge the situation rather than relying on orders from above. They basically expand that power a lot so a senior officer could stop a demonstration if it becomes too loud (they'd be able to judge that it's crossed the line into a public order offence because it's disturbing people around it) or for the Home Secretary to (within certain limits) how much disruption to the life of the community is permitted.

As I say it's all very illiberal especially taken together - I think the type of protests that are most at risk are the civil disobedience ones, so it's more likely to hit the old UK Uncut protests or Extinction Rebellion than, say, a march.

Edit: Also a lot of anti-traveller/Roma stuff in this bill.

[Josquius]

Come on. You know I didn't mean anything like that.
Of course it was horrible what happened and people are right to be upset about it.
But murders aren't a once in a blue moon event. They sadly do happen. And I can't recall many others stirring up a protest, let alone such a huge one as this.
It's interesting that somehow something has been triggered out of this one that led to things boiling over.

You may have a better sense of the murders that happen in the UK than I do, but I was under the impression that people getting murdered while using walking as a method of transit was not that common.

Looking at English + Welsh murder statistics (2018) it seems that more than 80% of female murder victims are killed in in or around a home, with only 17% of them murdered by strangers (though with 25% there are no suspects).

I dunno... why do you think it might have boiled over now?

It's not a story I've followed. Other people here have said bits about the guy being reported for flashing before and being a policeman, so if that's well known it could be a factor.
Lockdown fatigue is in there too.
It being in London also helps a lot.
Also it could just be the straw that broke the camels back, like Lloyd George being fairly business as usual

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile the government has spent £2.9 million on setting up a briefing room. I actually think this is a good thing because at the minute no Downing Street spokesman is ever named and they always have daily briefings with Westminster lobby correspondents. It's a very early 20th century form of government comms/transparency and I think it's a good thing that we're moving to daily televised (or televiseable) press conferences by a named Downing Street spokesperson - in this case Allegra Stratton.

And from everything I've read Nr 10 is really a bit of a mess internally. The PM's team works in the ground floor of several conjoined terraced houses - and some of the space is taken up with sort of ceremonial areas - so while the rest of the cabinet have buildings for their departments with lots of meeting rooms etc. Given that I think it's reasonable that it could cost some money to set up a media briefing room.

However - having spent £2.9 million I'd expect it to look a lot fucking better than this


I've been to swankier seminar rules in a university and the bits that look a bit swanky (wood panelling) is stuff that I assume was already there. Some builder has done their profession proud and absolutely conned us here - and fair play to them

Edit: On the other hand - I kind of love that they didn't remove Henry the Hoover before the photo

[The Larch]

Looks kinda like a tv set.

[Jacob]

Looks kinda like a tv set.

... it is a tv set.

[Sheilbh]

And for £2.9 million, it should be a stylish TV set

[Grey Fox]

Wood paneling in England? That's why it cost so much. Next time, use bricks.

[Tamas]

And for £2.9 million, it should be a stylish TV set

Cronies need to eat too. If you pay them to do it, and they contract someone good to do the work, they have less profit remaining to pocket.

[The Larch]

In other British news, I thought the Torygraph still wanted to pass for a serious paper. This is a tabloid-worthy kind of plan.

Daily Telegraph plans to link journalists' pay with article popularity

[Sheilbh]

Just read that article in the Guardian and good God the number of quotes a newspaper can get when other journalists are unhappy

An email sent by the editor, Chris Evans, last Thursday told staff that "in due course" the outlet wants to use the "Stars" system, which scores stories published online according to factors such as how many subscriptions they drive and how many clicks they get, "to link performance to reward" using subscription data.

Evans said: "It seems only right that those who attract and retain the most subscribers should be the most handsomely paid," and noted that working out the details would be "complicated" so that "we're not ready to do that ... yet".

But staff are said to be up in arms about the proposals, with some registering their objections in meetings held to explain the plans since Evans' email was sent.

Executives "tried to convince everybody that it's just experimental, not a big deal", one journalist told the Guardian. "They were squirming at the questions. Everyone is just hoping it's one of those mad ideas that eventually they quietly chuck out. Everyone is outraged. People feel compromised."

Another said: "I'd call the mood mutinous. If you're writing royal stories or big political news or coronavirus stuff or you're famous then you're going to get huge numbers. Most reporters are at the mercy of editors and it's not their fault if they're getting assigned boring things – and now that's going to affect their pay packet."

Internal WhatsApp discussions seen by the Guardian reflect that strength of feeling, with staff attacking the system as confusing, unfair, and likely to discourage good work. One veteran staffer told colleagues: "No one likes seeing how the sausage gets made. Especially when they turn out to be the sausages."

It's a little weird because the Telegraph is behind a paywall so I don't really see this connecting to that business model (except for subscription conversion).