My point is made to demonstrate the futility of non custodial sentences in the form of fines for people with no money.
100% agree. Of course custodial sentences are similarly futile.
Custodial sentences do at least have the benefit that the criminal isn't reoffending while inside.
Which may not help if - once they get out - they are even more prone to re-offend than had they gone via the non custodial route.
In @Telford's example, you have young women who would almost certainly consider that they have no realistic alternative. Do we realistically expect them not to reoffend?
This is just one area. In other areas, like violence, there may be drug addiction or alcoholism etc. involved. Different approaches are needed for different situations.
My point being that it is entirely predictable that certain approaches will not work and yet we cling to them anyway.
ISTM that nothing will work. No wonder gated communities exist.
Gated communities are most prevalent in societies that have gone down the road of being heavily punitive. There may be a lesson there somewhere.
People on remand are also innocent. And a prison sentence is not meant to equal sexual assault or gbh being visited on you by another inmate.
There's a similar discussion around gang violence. If rival gangs are killing each other, people who aren't directly involved are likely to give some sort of "live by the sword, die by the sword" shrug. If they're terrorizing ordinary people on their way to the shops, or the bus stop, then that is widely considered more of a problem.
My point is made to demonstrate the futility of non custodial sentences in the form of fines for people with no money.
100% agree. Of course custodial sentences are similarly futile.
One of the things to always think about in criminal justice is the situation of the criminal and the risk/benefit analysis.
For someone with a home and a career and an income, there is very little temptation to shop-lift. I might not get caught, but if I did, it would cost me a HUGE amount. For someone who is very poor and struggling to get by, the cost - even if caught - is realistically quite small whilst the gain in terms of perhaps just enough food to eat is relatively large.
In @Telford's example, you have young women who would almost certainly consider that they have no realistic alternative. Do we realistically expect them not to reoffend?
This is just one area. In other areas, like violence, there may be drug addiction or alcoholism etc. involved. Different approaches are needed for different situations.
My point being that it is entirely predictable that certain approaches will not work and yet we cling to them anyway.
To come back to the point, this is why the appointment of Lord Timpson makes me so optimistic. So much to do, but for the first time in a long time we have someone who wants to fix it. I watch with considerable interest.
AFZ
I do think that it's very important that released prisoners should have access to employment but for some offenders( offences against children etc), they should not be in a position to re-offend.
If thieves can't get a job, they are very likely to steal again.
We also, critically, need a way of reducing reoffending. If the lowest recidivism rate (in Norway) is 25%, there will always be something of a revolving door, but we need to get back to the idea that incarceration is itself a punishment, and the aim of the period of incarceration must be rehabilitation. This is both a moral and a practical imperative.
The link is too long to paste here, but the Wiki article on recidivism makes interesting reading.
And yet, of course, this is exactly what a discussion about a government, rather than a collection of endlessly policticking charlatans, must be about - the decisions they are taking as they start to govern. The endless pointless, petty politicking of the Conservatives is not how it's supposed to be done.
And yet, of course, this is exactly what a discussion about a government, rather than a collection of endlessly policticking charlatans, must be about - the decisions they are taking as they start to govern. The endless pointless, petty politicking of the Conservatives is not how it's supposed to be done.
Yes. Now that the adults are back in the room, the risible posturings of the previous regime will, hopefully, not be repeated.
And yet, of course, this is exactly what a discussion about a government, rather than a collection of endlessly policticking charlatans, must be about - the decisions they are taking as they start to govern. The endless pointless, petty politicking of the Conservatives is not how it's supposed to be done.
Yes. Now that the adults are back in the room, the risible posturings of the previous regime will, hopefully, not be repeated.
So far the new government seems immune to it.
I won't link to it, but James Cleverly has been tweeting this week about the number of people who have crossed the channel in small boats since the election. His assertion is that the number is up because the government cancelled the Rwanda policy. (That is literally what he's been saying).
Quite apart from the logic failure, there's also a basic fact failure there.
I mention it here because Cleverly is generally touted by the media as one of the more grown-up Tories. Which is probably true to be fair, but just demonstrates how bad the rest are.
As far as this thread goes, it's been a proper discussion about policy. It is not necessarily a bad thing that we've had a lot on Prisons and criminal justice because there is a crisis. A crisis the government has recognised by appointing an expert to fix it.
I would be open to a separate thread but also think we don't necessarily need one, so long a criminal justice does not exclude discussions of the other issues of the day and how well or badly the Government is doing.
And yet, of course, this is exactly what a discussion about a government, rather than a collection of endlessly policticking charlatans, must be about - the decisions they are taking as they start to govern. The endless pointless, petty politicking of the Conservatives is not how it's supposed to be done.
Yes. Now that the adults are back in the room, the risible posturings of the previous regime will, hopefully, not be repeated.
Instead we just get the off-the-record briefings against Sue Gray. The Labour Right have long since learned that manipulating the press to be their mouthpiece is far superior to public spats and grandstanding.
People on remand are also innocent. And a prison sentence is not meant to equal sexual assault or gbh being visited on you by another inmate.
There's a similar discussion around gang violence. If rival gangs are killing each other, people who aren't directly involved are likely to give some sort of "live by the sword, die by the sword" shrug. If they're terrorizing ordinary people on their way to the shops, or the bus stop, then that is widely considered more of a problem.
Also, it's been stated a few times here that violent offenders need to be locked up "to keep society safe". Nobody putting forward that view seems to have considered their fellow prisoners as part of "society".
This is the root of the issue for me. If people were advocating rehabilitation and early release (or non-custodial sentences) for all prisoners, violent or not, then I could respect that as a principled stand. By saying such leniency should only be for non-violent prisoners they are implicitly saying that either (a) violent criminals are far more likely to reoffend than non-violent ones, or (b) non-violent crime isn't something society needs to be protected from. I don't believe (a), and I don't agree with (b).
But it's not leniency. It's the obvious thing to do - to require a response which reduces the chances of reoffending at the same time as depriving the offender of the freedom to choose their activities. Curfews, especially those reinforced by electronic tagging, are a significant deprivation of liberty, which are intended to allow earning but effectively little else outside the home. Since non-custodial sentences are more effective from this point of view than custodial sentences, it follows directly that only those offenders who pose a risk to life and limb should be incarcerated.
Are prisoners part of society? Yes. They are, necessarily, a segregated part of society. The question is why they are segregated is obvious next step, and the only sufficient justification I can come up with is public safety. The safety of private property, to my mind, is not sufficient for incarceration. It's not a bad focus for crime prevention, since it's important to our self-definition as a society, but I think incarcerating people to defend it gives it too much importance. The liberty of fellow citizens is more important, even if it is impaired. Once you break the structure of fragile lives by incarcerating people, the destruction is often irreparable, leading to consequences for many more people than the offender.
People on remand are also innocent. And a prison sentence is not meant to equal sexual assault or gbh being visited on you by another inmate.
There's a similar discussion around gang violence. If rival gangs are killing each other, people who aren't directly involved are likely to give some sort of "live by the sword, die by the sword" shrug. If they're terrorizing ordinary people on their way to the shops, or the bus stop, then that is widely considered more of a problem.
Also, it's been stated a few times here that violent offenders need to be locked up "to keep society safe". Nobody putting forward that view seems to have considered their fellow prisoners as part of "society".
This is the root of the issue for me. If people were advocating rehabilitation and early release (or non-custodial sentences) for all prisoners, violent or not, then I could respect that as a principled stand. By saying such leniency should only be for non-violent prisoners they are implicitly saying that either (a) violent criminals are far more likely to reoffend than non-violent ones, or (b) non-violent crime isn't something society needs to be protected from. I don't believe (a), and I don't agree with (b).
@Marvin the Martian as I said previously the principles of the Nordic model apply to those having committed violent crime as well as those committing non-violent crime. Indeed as you say the core principle is that offenders are still part of society, not something separate. I would be interested to hear your views on it.
The safety of private property, to my mind, is not sufficient for incarceration ... I think incarcerating people to defend it gives it too much importance.
This is where we differ. I don't see why anyone should have to accept a higher risk of becoming the victim of non-violent crime than they should for violent crime. Decisions about sentencing should by all means take into account the likelihood of reoffending, but not the nature thereof.
I can see the point that threats to personal property can be as much of a concern to someone's sense of personal security and stability as threats of violence.
I think that might question exactly where you draw the boundary between crimes that merit imprisonment and crimes that don't; I don't think it questions the principle that whenever community service is likely to prevent more crimes than imprisonment you prefer community service. The point of the penalty system is to prevent crimes, not merely to satisfy the "Something must be done; this is something" impulse.
The safety of private property, to my mind, is not sufficient for incarceration ... I think incarcerating people to defend it gives it too much importance.
This is where we differ. I don't see why anyone should have to accept a higher risk of becoming the victim of non-violent crime than they should for violent crime. Decisions about sentencing should by all means take into account the likelihood of reoffending, but not the nature thereof.
Any sensible risk analysis includes both the probability of a particular risk, and the seriousness of the effect of such a risk. We take significant efforts to prevent quite unlikely accidental deaths, and almost no effort to prevent paper cuts.
Rioting in the streets of Leeds. Police decided to let them get on with it and left the area, before returing when it was quiet. I am not expecting to hear of any arrests. The new Home Secretary, who's constituency is in Leeds, condemned the violence
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of not data helps nobody.
In other news, President Zelensky of Ukraine is addressing the UK cabinet today on the current situation in the on-going war.
This is very rare but again, shows that (contrary to the stupid taunts from ex-ministers on Twitter), the new government is already seriously engaged with the geopolitics and nation security threats we face.
It must be a relief to Mr Zelensky to be able to deal with responsible grown-ups.
On the contrary, I think Johnson's approach to Ukraine was the best aspect of his premiership. If Zelensky is relieved, it will be because Labour are not too different from the Conservatives in this area.
It must be a relief to Mr Zelensky to be able to deal with responsible grown-ups.
On the contrary, I think Johnson's approach to Ukraine was the best aspect of his premiership. If Zelensky is relieved, it will be because Labour are not too different from the Conservatives in this area.
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
I don’t think the Labour government are showboating doing this whereas I think Johnson was.
I doubt that matters much to Zelensky. He himself is aware of the value of PR and if his allies want a photo-op for domestic consumption why would he object to that? As long as they then put their (metaphorical and literal) money where their mouth is, that is.
I don’t think the Labour government are showboating doing this whereas I think Johnson was.
I doubt that matters much to Zelensky. He himself is aware of the value of PR and if his allies want a photo-op for domestic consumption why would he object to that? As long as they then put their (metaphorical and literal) money where their mouth is, that is.
Yeah. I doubt he very much liked Johnson and I strongly suspect he was aware that Johnson had been foolishly close to some Russians. Conversely, with his country in extremis, he would not say no to any meaningful help and it is probably the only positive of Johnson's premiership that he got this one right.
That notwithstanding, I think he probably prefers to deal with Starmer, but (rightly) his only focus is getting his country the help it needs. He will care relatively little about anything else.
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Do you think that TPTB turned up at 6am in the morning ?
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Do you think that TPTB turned up at 6am in the morning ?
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Do you think that TPTB turned up at 6am in the morning ?
Well, it seems that's one way of looking at it, but, as I wasn't there (and I suppose neither you nor Telford were, either), perhaps we'd better not speculate too much.
Comments
Which may not help if - once they get out - they are even more prone to re-offend than had they gone via the non custodial route.
Gated communities are most prevalent in societies that have gone down the road of being heavily punitive. There may be a lesson there somewhere.
Resetting relationships with the EU will be an interesting one to watch, but O! how much more positive an attitude than the last lot...
There's a similar discussion around gang violence. If rival gangs are killing each other, people who aren't directly involved are likely to give some sort of "live by the sword, die by the sword" shrug. If they're terrorizing ordinary people on their way to the shops, or the bus stop, then that is widely considered more of a problem.
And here is a Wikpedia view
I do think that it's very important that released prisoners should have access to employment but for some offenders( offences against children etc), they should not be in a position to re-offend.
If thieves can't get a job, they are very likely to steal again.
The link is too long to paste here, but the Wiki article on recidivism makes interesting reading.
Yes. Now that the adults are back in the room, the risible posturings of the previous regime will, hopefully, not be repeated.
So far the new government seems immune to it.
I won't link to it, but James Cleverly has been tweeting this week about the number of people who have crossed the channel in small boats since the election. His assertion is that the number is up because the government cancelled the Rwanda policy. (That is literally what he's been saying).
Quite apart from the logic failure, there's also a basic fact failure there.
I mention it here because Cleverly is generally touted by the media as one of the more grown-up Tories. Which is probably true to be fair, but just demonstrates how bad the rest are.
As far as this thread goes, it's been a proper discussion about policy. It is not necessarily a bad thing that we've had a lot on Prisons and criminal justice because there is a crisis. A crisis the government has recognised by appointing an expert to fix it.
I would be open to a separate thread but also think we don't necessarily need one, so long a criminal justice does not exclude discussions of the other issues of the day and how well or badly the Government is doing.
AFZ
Instead we just get the off-the-record briefings against Sue Gray. The Labour Right have long since learned that manipulating the press to be their mouthpiece is far superior to public spats and grandstanding.
Also, it's been stated a few times here that violent offenders need to be locked up "to keep society safe". Nobody putting forward that view seems to have considered their fellow prisoners as part of "society".
This is the root of the issue for me. If people were advocating rehabilitation and early release (or non-custodial sentences) for all prisoners, violent or not, then I could respect that as a principled stand. By saying such leniency should only be for non-violent prisoners they are implicitly saying that either (a) violent criminals are far more likely to reoffend than non-violent ones, or (b) non-violent crime isn't something society needs to be protected from. I don't believe (a), and I don't agree with (b).
Are prisoners part of society? Yes. They are, necessarily, a segregated part of society. The question is why they are segregated is obvious next step, and the only sufficient justification I can come up with is public safety. The safety of private property, to my mind, is not sufficient for incarceration. It's not a bad focus for crime prevention, since it's important to our self-definition as a society, but I think incarcerating people to defend it gives it too much importance. The liberty of fellow citizens is more important, even if it is impaired. Once you break the structure of fragile lives by incarcerating people, the destruction is often irreparable, leading to consequences for many more people than the offender.
@Marvin the Martian as I said previously the principles of the Nordic model apply to those having committed violent crime as well as those committing non-violent crime. Indeed as you say the core principle is that offenders are still part of society, not something separate. I would be interested to hear your views on it.
This is where we differ. I don't see why anyone should have to accept a higher risk of becoming the victim of non-violent crime than they should for violent crime. Decisions about sentencing should by all means take into account the likelihood of reoffending, but not the nature thereof.
I think that might question exactly where you draw the boundary between crimes that merit imprisonment and crimes that don't; I don't think it questions the principle that whenever community service is likely to prevent more crimes than imprisonment you prefer community service. The point of the penalty system is to prevent crimes, not merely to satisfy the "Something must be done; this is something" impulse.
Any sensible risk analysis includes both the probability of a particular risk, and the seriousness of the effect of such a risk. We take significant efforts to prevent quite unlikely accidental deaths, and almost no effort to prevent paper cuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/18/police-car-turned-over-and-vehicles-set-alight-in-disorder-in-leeds
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
This.
This is very rare but again, shows that (contrary to the stupid taunts from ex-ministers on Twitter), the new government is already seriously engaged with the geopolitics and nation security threats we face.
AFZ
On the contrary, I think Johnson's approach to Ukraine was the best aspect of his premiership. If Zelensky is relieved, it will be because Labour are not too different from the Conservatives in this area.
Agreed.
Agreed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/19/uk-will-not-help-ukraine-hit-targets-in-russia-defence-secretary-says
No sending of *Our Boys*, then...
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng3xgy2k8o
It seems to have been a family argument/affair, exacerbated by other people, perhaps for nefarious ends...
I doubt that matters much to Zelensky. He himself is aware of the value of PR and if his allies want a photo-op for domestic consumption why would he object to that? As long as they then put their (metaphorical and literal) money where their mouth is, that is.
Yeah. I doubt he very much liked Johnson and I strongly suspect he was aware that Johnson had been foolishly close to some Russians. Conversely, with his country in extremis, he would not say no to any meaningful help and it is probably the only positive of Johnson's premiership that he got this one right.
That notwithstanding, I think he probably prefers to deal with Starmer, but (rightly) his only focus is getting his country the help it needs. He will care relatively little about anything else.
AFZ
They seem to have a number of interests in common.
3bn annually plus an additional 3.5bn of unspecified support to BAe
Why just @Telford. I'm no flog 'em, hang 'em merchant but I agree that arrests should be made.
Of course that's not all that should happen.
Our new regime has some hard decisions to make, at least partly due to the imprudence of the last lot.
It was Telford who said earlier that he didn't expect any arrests to be made, so the link was primarily for his edification.
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Try reading this report:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/19/how-unrest-in-leeds-escalated-and-was-defused-harehills
So police turned up, exacerbated tensions and then things cooled down after they went away.