Quantcast
The New Leader of the Labour Party - Page 30 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Numero Veinticinco

The New Leader of the Labour Party

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

Fair enough. Disagree with that view strongly, personally. I think she seems extremely contrived and find the constant self-referencing a huge give away in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

No idea what that means.

Sorry I got confused if it was SD or Jess Phillips you were talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, torahboy said:

And I thought the election result was depressing.

I think Philips we lead the right leaning candidates, so hopefully she hasn't got a chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad Nandy is running and has made a half decent pitch. I think Nandy will do much better than people expect if she can get enough nominations. We need these pro-remain candidates to be challenged on where they stand on Europe and for them to make a pledge that we won't become a rejoin party in this parliament. Id like to see her challenge Starmer and Thornberry on what part they played in influencing Corbyns Brexit stance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillips is the ultimate rent a mouth. Would say absolutely anything if it meant her profile would rise. She's the female George Galloway without the intelligence. Thankfully she won't succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

I think Philips we lead the right leaning candidates, so hopefully she hasn't got a chance. 

It would be very satisfying if she polls less than Liz Kendall's 4%. Her media friends, though, wiil feature her strongly for a couple of reasons  - the belief that she somehow represents the majority of 'traditional' Labour voters and, more aligned to their true quest, that she will be the massive car crash that will kill off the party altogether. Avoid like plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 2013;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/benefit-fraudsters-prosecutions-10-years-jail

 

Benefit fraudsters face increased sentences of up to 10 years in jail

 This article is more than 6 years old
Director of public prosecutions sets out tougher guidelines, including use of the Fraud Act, which carries longer sentences
 

Benefit cheats will face increased jail terms of up to 10 years in a crackdown on those who "flout the system", Britain's most senior prosecutor has said.

Keir Starmer QC warned it was time for a "tough stance" against the perpetrators of benefit and tax credit fraud as he set out new guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The director of public prosecutions said the £1.9bn annual cost of the crime to the taxpayer should be at the "forefront of lawyers' minds" when considering whether a prosecution was in the public interest.

Suspects can now be charged under the Fraud Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, the CPS said. In the past, benefit cheats have often been pursued under specific social security legislation which carries a maximum term of seven years.

A financial threshold that prevented benefit fraud cases of less than £20,000 being sent to crown court would be abolished, the CPS said.

"It is a myth that 'getting one over on the system' is a victimless crime: the truth is we all pay the price," Starmer said.

"It is vital that we take a tough stance on this type of fraud and I am determined to see a clampdown on those who flout the system."

Under the new guidelines, prosecutors in England and Wales will be told to seek tough penalties in cases with aggravating features such as multiple offences, abuse of position or substantial loss to public funds.

Professionally planned frauds, the use of a false or stolen identity and cases involving attempts to dispose of the evidence will also be targeted.

Benefit fraud of less than £20,000 was previously automatically allocated to magistrates courts, which can hand out maximum sentences of only 12 months.

The financial threshold will be abolished, bringing the prosecution of benefit fraud in line with the prosecution of other fraud cases, the CPS said.

The move follows the merger of the prosecutions division of the Department for Work and Pensions with the CPS in April 2012, and the transfer of staff to the CPS welfare, rural and health division.

Starmer said: "The guidance for prosecutors is clear that if the evidence demonstrates an element of dishonesty, rather than just knowledge of a fraud, the appropriate charges should be used.

"This will ensure that following conviction, all options are on the table for magistrates and judges including custodial sentences. Indeed, prosecutors are also instructed not to shy away from using a range of legislation that carries higher sentences where it is merited.

"The cost to the nation incurred by benefit fraud should be at the forefront of lawyers' minds when considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The loss of £1.9bn of public money has a significant impact on communities up and down the country.

"Where frauds have been professionally planned, carried out over a long period of time and include attempts to conceal or destroy evidence, then we will make this plain when advising the courts on sentencing."

Last year, the CPS saw more than 8,600 prosecutions in benefit and tax credit cases, along with 4,000 in the first five months of this year, Starmer said. He said the current conviction rate was 89.7%.

 

Farewell to the 2010s…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

The only way to win is to not take part.

 

But I was more defending Phillips here than anything else. She seems pretty genuine to me.

Did you back Jo Swinson to be lib dem leader by any chance? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A Red said:

Governments on the other hand do tend to be shite at running things. 

I recommend taking the GWR up to London of the weekend and give the tube (London Underground) a go. It’s pretty damn sensational. Also most of the top international airlines are state owned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

From 2013;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/benefit-fraudsters-prosecutions-10-years-jail

 

Benefit fraudsters face increased sentences of up to 10 years in jail

 This article is more than 6 years old
Director of public prosecutions sets out tougher guidelines, including use of the Fraud Act, which carries longer sentences
 

Benefit cheats will face increased jail terms of up to 10 years in a crackdown on those who "flout the system", Britain's most senior prosecutor has said.

Keir Starmer QC warned it was time for a "tough stance" against the perpetrators of benefit and tax credit fraud as he set out new guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The director of public prosecutions said the £1.9bn annual cost of the crime to the taxpayer should be at the "forefront of lawyers' minds" when considering whether a prosecution was in the public interest.

Suspects can now be charged under the Fraud Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, the CPS said. In the past, benefit cheats have often been pursued under specific social security legislation which carries a maximum term of seven years.

Read more

A financial threshold that prevented benefit fraud cases of less than £20,000 being sent to crown court would be abolished, the CPS said.

"It is a myth that 'getting one over on the system' is a victimless crime: the truth is we all pay the price," Starmer said.

"It is vital that we take a tough stance on this type of fraud and I am determined to see a clampdown on those who flout the system."

Under the new guidelines, prosecutors in England and Wales will be told to seek tough penalties in cases with aggravating features such as multiple offences, abuse of position or substantial loss to public funds.

Professionally planned frauds, the use of a false or stolen identity and cases involving attempts to dispose of the evidence will also be targeted.

Benefit fraud of less than £20,000 was previously automatically allocated to magistrates courts, which can hand out maximum sentences of only 12 months.

The financial threshold will be abolished, bringing the prosecution of benefit fraud in line with the prosecution of other fraud cases, the CPS said.

The move follows the merger of the prosecutions division of the Department for Work and Pensions with the CPS in April 2012, and the transfer of staff to the CPS welfare, rural and health division.

Starmer said: "The guidance for prosecutors is clear that if the evidence demonstrates an element of dishonesty, rather than just knowledge of a fraud, the appropriate charges should be used.

"This will ensure that following conviction, all options are on the table for magistrates and judges including custodial sentences. Indeed, prosecutors are also instructed not to shy away from using a range of legislation that carries higher sentences where it is merited.

"The cost to the nation incurred by benefit fraud should be at the forefront of lawyers' minds when considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The loss of £1.9bn of public money has a significant impact on communities up and down the country.

"Where frauds have been professionally planned, carried out over a long period of time and include attempts to conceal or destroy evidence, then we will make this plain when advising the courts on sentencing."

Last year, the CPS saw more than 8,600 prosecutions in benefit and tax credit cases, along with 4,000 in the first five months of this year, Starmer said. He said the current conviction rate was 89.7%.

 

Farewell to the 2010s…

Meanwhile the prosecution rate for rape is somewhere around 1-2%. That is 98% of reported rapes that go unpunished and uncharged. 98%. 

 

Obviously starmer is not solely to blame but that is an absolutely pathetic showing, a serious indictment of the CPS. It’s clear to see where the priorities lie for these people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, moof said:

Meanwhile the prosecution rate for rape is somewhere around 1-2%. That is 98% of reported rapes that go unpunished and uncharged. 98%. 

 

Obviously starmer is not solely to blame but that is an absolutely pathetic showing, a serious indictment of the CPS. It’s clear to see where the priorities lie for these people. 

I had a quick look at the links and the cases you mentioned, it’s very murky waters. Without knowing the details of each trial or why the judges decided to find  that the accusers were untruthful (and judging from the judge’s comments... they had me ch stronger opinions than that) it’s hard to really comment. I have to be honest, it looks as if the campaigners are against punishing those who knowingly make false allegations of rape. I understand the reason they give for that but - as with the punishing of those who are proven to be fraudulently claiming benefits - I have no issue with punishing them if there’s proof of it. 
 

Moving on to the conviction rate in rape trials, I think it’s be important to note the figures before and after his time, and the steps he took to drive down conviction rates, and also the comparative prosecution rates of other countries’ systems to see if its a case of Keirsy being on the side of the raper (either through incompetence or through him being a horrible bastard) rather than just a case of rape being difficult to prove and being very complex cases, etc. If it showed a marked decrease because of actions he had taken, rather than been the same across multiple people and different countries, then I’d certainly change my view on him. Right now, it feels a bit like it’s a case of trying to see if any shit sticks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

I think Philips we lead the right leaning candidates, so hopefully she hasn't got a chance. 

Right leaning?  You mean ‘not as far left’?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Right leaning?  You mean ‘not as far left’?  

Not really. Maybe if you're a Tory they'd be the words you'd use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barry Wom said:

Not really. Maybe if you're a Tory they'd be the words you'd use. 

Fair enough, you see her as right leaning.  It’d be interesting to see the evidence for that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Fair enough, you see her as right leaning.  It’d be interesting to see the evidence for that.  

I can't be arsed frankly! I've followed her on the local news here and I think she's full of shit and just follows the daily narrative, which is normally right wing driven. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I can't be arsed frankly! I've followed her on the local news here and I think she's full of shit and just follows the daily narrative, which is normally right wing driven. 

Ha. Fair enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I can't be arsed frankly! I've followed her on the local news here and I think she's full of shit and just follows the daily narrative, which is normally right wing driven. 

Yep, plus shes a massive cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2020 at 15:31, A Red said:

They didnt though. If you think the manifesto was fine and the twatting the party got was just down to other reasons, I think you are deluding yourself. I hope Labour isnt going to be going down the, its a failure to deliver the message rather than blaming the message itself, route.

I've got scant evidence for that - stuff like the opinions of a vox pop of Tory voters in Surrey a few years ago, who all supported those sort of policies and the unanimous feedback from people who went out campaigning, who all say that it was "I don't like Corbyn" and "Get Brexit done" that cost Labour.  But however unscientific and anecdotal that evidence is, it's better than the absolute nothing that says (for example) working class voters in northern England and Scotland hated the idea of more rights for workers.

 

If you've got any surveys or evidence that the manifesto (other than Brexit) was unpopular, then please share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×