The headlines today...

[Xipe Totec]

The days of Scotland sending loads of Labour MPs to Westminster are long gone, thankfully.

Indeed. But things like that will happen when Labour MPs snuggle up with Tories to persuade Scotland to vote against its own interests, armed with a mountain of hollow promises, every one of which has been either ignored or broken.

 

[PaulB]

'Harpers Law' apparently brings with it an automatic life sentence for the killing of emergency workers. Much discussed in the papers this morning.
The general feeling would appear to be, 'why the favouritism for emergency workers and shouldn't everyone's life be regarded in the same way?'

My wife's job brings her into conflict with many of the worst dregs in society and on her evidence, children are taken off totally unsuitable parents and step-parents of the most vulnerable (nearly always disabled) kids you could imagine. This brings her a lot of grief from these people who will no longer be able to abuse (sexually, physically, mentally or financially) their little 'ticket to pleasure'. Threats to harm, attempts at physical violence, damage to her car, that sort of thing. She's never asked for special protection but I can see where the motivation for this law has come from.

 

[swansonj]

An odd question, MrJ.
Were either of you around in 1800? Unlikely to notice an increase that happened that long ago.

"Overcrowded" is an entirely subjective label. Given that the UK population has been going up more or less continuously throughout all of our lifetimes, I rather suspect this is case of "what I grew up with was just fine, but the world has gone to the dogs since". Can anyone give an objective reason why 67 million is overcrowded but 57 million was not?

 

[PaulB]

"Overcrowded" is an entirely subjective label. Given that the UK population has been going up more or less continuously throughout all of our lifetimes, I rather suspect this is case of "what I grew up with was just fine, but the world has gone to the dogs since". Can anyone give an objective reason why 67 million is overcrowded but 57 million was not?

Well they say the universe is expanding, but finding a parking space doesn't get any easier, does it?

 

[Deleted member 28]

'Harpers Law' apparently brings with it an automatic life sentence for the killing of emergency workers. Much discussed in the papers this morning.
The general feeling would appear to be, 'why the favouritism for emergency workers and shouldn't everyone's life be regarded in the same way?'

My wife's job brings her into conflict with many of the worst dregs in society and on her evidence, children are taken off totally unsuitable parents and step-parents of the most vulnerable (nearly always disabled) kids you could imagine. This brings her a lot of grief from these people who will no longer be able to abuse (sexually, physically, mentally or financially) their little 'ticket to pleasure'. Threats to harm, attempts at physical violence, damage to her car, that sort of thing. She's never asked for special protection but I can see where the motivation for this law has come from.

Many been killed though?

My lads a Prison officer and they don't come under this new law and he has more than his fair share of threats, don't you see this as a good thing?

 

[FishFright]

Well they say the universe is expanding, but finding a parking space doesn't get any easier, does it?

Because the cars are getting bigger more quickly than the universe expands.

 

[BoldonLad]

'Harpers Law' apparently brings with it an automatic life sentence for the killing of emergency workers. Much discussed in the papers this morning.
The general feeling would appear to be, 'why the favouritism for emergency workers and shouldn't everyone's life be regarded in the same way?'

My wife's job brings her into conflict with many of the worst dregs in society and on her evidence, children are taken off totally unsuitable parents and step-parents of the most vulnerable (nearly always disabled) kids you could imagine. This brings her a lot of grief from these people who will no longer be able to abuse (sexually, physically, mentally or financially) their little 'ticket to pleasure'. Threats to harm, attempts at physical violence, damage to her car, that sort of thing. She's never asked for special protection but I can see where the motivation for this law has come from.

The bolded bit would be my view too.

Same with violence/abuse against emergency workers.

Violence (including the ultimate violence of killing), abuse etc is not acceptable against anyone, regardless of job. profession, colour, creed, sexual orientation etc etc, we should all be equal under the law.

 

[PaulB]

Many been killed though?

Not enough for you though?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Not enough for you though?

For me?

I think the Death penalty should be brought back so you're barking up the wrong tree with that one, point is it's a start but ,I assume because it's the Tories in power it's not acceptable?

There's many cases where Emergency teams are targeted so I guess this is an attempt of deterring the people doing it, I would imagine the instances in your Wife's line of work is far less?

There's a whole thread on here stating why Prison doesn't work, make your minds up!

 

[matticus]

...
<snip>
Same with violence/abuse against emergency workers.

Violence (including the ultimate violence of killing), abuse etc is not acceptable against anyone, regardless of job. profession, colour, creed, sexual orientation etc etc, we should all be equal under the law.

I think that's a fair point, but I take the view this law is about protecting the service/officer whilst doing their duties. So it is an attempt to strengthen law-and-order/society etc.

(I presume that thumping an off-duty copper or nurse isn't considered special.)

 

[PaulB]

For me?

I think the Death penalty should be brought back

Yes, you probably do.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think that's a fair point, but I take the view this law is about protecting the service/officer whilst doing their duties. So it is an attempt to strengthen law-and-order/society etc.

(I presume that thumping an off-duty copper or nurse isn't considered special.)

I thought Police Officers were never “off duty”?

 

[icowden]

The bolded bit would be my view too.
Same with violence/abuse against emergency workers.

The other concern I have seen about "Harper's Law" is that it might actually have the reverse effect to that intended, in that if an offence has a mandatory life sentence without any judicial discretion, a Jury may be less minded to convict in many cases.

Absolute laws that exclude circumstance are bad laws. But they are popular hence Dominic "Christmas Pud" Raab is cheerleading it.

Useful twitter thread here:-


View: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1463420385710460933?s=20


And a nice explainer here as to why it won't even mean that someone who kills a police offer will spend their life in prison:-

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/harpers-law

 

[Pale Rider]

The other concern I have seen about "Harper's Law" is that it might actually have the reverse effect to that intended, in that if an offence has a mandatory life sentence without any judicial discretion, a Jury may be less minded to convict in many cases.

Absolute laws that exclude circumstance are bad laws. But they are popular hence Dominic "Christmas Pud" Raab is cheerleading it.

Useful twitter thread here:-


View: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1463420385710460933?s=20


And a nice explainer here as to why it won't even mean that someone who kills a police offer will spend their life in prison:-

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/harpers-law

I only made the first few replies of that twatter thread, but it looks like routine abuse of the Justice Secretary - every incumbent of that job gets it from a section of the criminal Bar.

Rozenberg appears to be confusing 'life sentence' with 'whole life order'.

As I remarked at the time, the Harper case went Pete Tong the moment the jury declined to convict of murder but convicted of manslaughter.

The resulting sentences and bellows of public disapproval were entirely predictable.

As regards whether cop killers will spend longer in jail, that will depend on the tariff set for the life sentence, but they almost inevitably will.

The tariff must be served in full before parole is considered, whereas someone doing a determinate manslaughter sentence is almost automatically released after two thirds.

Thus the Harper killers will do roughly eight or 10 years inside.

The starting point for murder is a tariff of 12 years, a murdering cop killer will inevitably get nearer double that, which must be served in cold blood.

We don't know what the tariffs will be for a cop killer convicted of manslaughter under Harper's Law, but they could easily be 20+ years, which given they must be served in full, will mean longer than for someone convicted of manslaughter under the current regime.

My personal record is a tariff of 35 years, imposed by an admittedly harsh judge for the murder of an elderly woman.

The punter was also 35 years old, which given the reduced life expectancy of lifers, means he has a very good chance of dying in prison.

Not that I will be around to see it.