@mrlogers.bsky.social
Wrong -England & Wales)
Data released by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) for "group-based" child sexual abuse in 2023 provides the most recent overview:
White: 83% (rising to 85% in the first three quarters of 2024)
Asian: 7%
Black 5%
Data released by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) for "group-based" child sexual abuse in 2023 provides the most recent overview:
White: 83% (rising to 85% in the first three quarters of 2024)
Asian: 7%
Black 5%
December 20, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Wrong -England & Wales)
Data released by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) for "group-based" child sexual abuse in 2023 provides the most recent overview:
White: 83% (rising to 85% in the first three quarters of 2024)
Asian: 7%
Black 5%
Data released by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) for "group-based" child sexual abuse in 2023 provides the most recent overview:
White: 83% (rising to 85% in the first three quarters of 2024)
Asian: 7%
Black 5%
2. And I doubt a judge will ‘retire’ to consider his verdict for many hours - and, of course, there will be no need for him to refresh himself of the evidence. From my 20 years of experience a 5 day trial at present could be reduced to 2 days - a massive saving of court time
December 4, 2025 at 9:13 AM
2. And I doubt a judge will ‘retire’ to consider his verdict for many hours - and, of course, there will be no need for him to refresh himself of the evidence. From my 20 years of experience a 5 day trial at present could be reduced to 2 days - a massive saving of court time
I have watched the video. Remember the contributor’s have a vested financial interest I trials. Ann Soubury ignores that a trial before a legally qualified person will stop a lot of prolonged ‘waffle’ by defence barristers as the judge will be better placed to decide which facts are relevant.
December 4, 2025 at 9:10 AM
I have watched the video. Remember the contributor’s have a vested financial interest I trials. Ann Soubury ignores that a trial before a legally qualified person will stop a lot of prolonged ‘waffle’ by defence barristers as the judge will be better placed to decide which facts are relevant.
But it would stop the upward projectory of cases in the future.
December 3, 2025 at 1:36 PM
But it would stop the upward projectory of cases in the future.
How many of those saying it is fundamental to our system have actually been in a Crown Court? I attended at for 20 years and despaired at defendants playing the system - inconveniencing witnesses, wasting the time of jury panels by pleading guilty at the last moment just to keep remand privileges.
December 3, 2025 at 1:35 PM
How many of those saying it is fundamental to our system have actually been in a Crown Court? I attended at for 20 years and despaired at defendants playing the system - inconveniencing witnesses, wasting the time of jury panels by pleading guilty at the last moment just to keep remand privileges.
In a magistrates court
December 3, 2025 at 8:16 AM
In a magistrates court
Not sure they were joking
November 26, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Not sure they were joking
By ‘commit’ I mean either pleads guilty or is convicted.
November 26, 2025 at 10:58 AM
By ‘commit’ I mean either pleads guilty or is convicted.
Sorry - no idea what argument - if any - you are advancing.
November 26, 2025 at 10:56 AM
Sorry - no idea what argument - if any - you are advancing.
Yes they are - serving time does not expunge your criminal record. If a man is convicted of rape and does his custodial sentence - does that mean he is not a rapist? Anyone who commits a crime is a ‘criminal’
November 26, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Yes they are - serving time does not expunge your criminal record. If a man is convicted of rape and does his custodial sentence - does that mean he is not a rapist? Anyone who commits a crime is a ‘criminal’
Not what I am saying at all. That is why a defendant’s previous convictions are not disclosed to the jury prior to a guilty verdict - if they find NG his/her criminal record is never read out. But if a man has committed a crime previously, he is a criminal. Facing a new charge does not change that
November 21, 2025 at 1:44 PM
Not what I am saying at all. That is why a defendant’s previous convictions are not disclosed to the jury prior to a guilty verdict - if they find NG his/her criminal record is never read out. But if a man has committed a crime previously, he is a criminal. Facing a new charge does not change that
But that would not apply to the current caseloads. Take this example - someone hoping to go into the armed forces is charged with theft - whether a magazine or £1m - a conviction could prevent that - hence the right to be ‘tried by your peers’ - how would you grade that?
November 20, 2025 at 7:04 PM
But that would not apply to the current caseloads. Take this example - someone hoping to go into the armed forces is charged with theft - whether a magazine or £1m - a conviction could prevent that - hence the right to be ‘tried by your peers’ - how would you grade that?
Unfortunately we do not have degrees of Theft so cannot say a theft of a magazine is different than theft by an employee of many thousands of pounds. As a matter of interest - which offences tried before a Crown Court have sentences of less than 5 years?
November 20, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Unfortunately we do not have degrees of Theft so cannot say a theft of a magazine is different than theft by an employee of many thousands of pounds. As a matter of interest - which offences tried before a Crown Court have sentences of less than 5 years?
Defendants know that if they face a strong case and they cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the jury, if found guilty they will receive a longer sentence than if they had entered a plea timeously so they plead at the first hearing.
November 20, 2025 at 6:30 PM
Defendants know that if they face a strong case and they cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the jury, if found guilty they will receive a longer sentence than if they had entered a plea timeously so they plead at the first hearing.
Why not? Having worked in courts for 30 years, defendants who were on remand would often plead guilty on the day of trial if all the witnesses showed up. They had remand privileges that would not have applied if they pleaded straight away. And solicitors/barristers played along with them.
November 20, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Why not? Having worked in courts for 30 years, defendants who were on remand would often plead guilty on the day of trial if all the witnesses showed up. They had remand privileges that would not have applied if they pleaded straight away. And solicitors/barristers played along with them.
Not what I am saying - you said they were not criminals - but most of them are. Just because the present accusation had not been proved does not alter their status
November 20, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Not what I am saying - you said they were not criminals - but most of them are. Just because the present accusation had not been proved does not alter their status
Puerile nature not ‘purity’ - damn spell check
November 20, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Puerile nature not ‘purity’ - damn spell check
You lose separation of powers and no one to police abuses of systems. Look at people whom DNA has subsequently proved did not commit offences to realise the purity of this stance
November 20, 2025 at 5:18 PM
You lose separation of powers and no one to police abuses of systems. Look at people whom DNA has subsequently proved did not commit offences to realise the purity of this stance
Max sentence for theft is 7 years
November 20, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Max sentence for theft is 7 years
Nobody says there will be a lack of evidence - just who decides on the guilt based on the evidence will change. Too often cases are delayed for so long that the witnesses who van give that evidence are reluctant to attend and the defendant is acquitted by ‘playing the system’ rather on the evidence
November 20, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Nobody says there will be a lack of evidence - just who decides on the guilt based on the evidence will change. Too often cases are delayed for so long that the witnesses who van give that evidence are reluctant to attend and the defendant is acquitted by ‘playing the system’ rather on the evidence
As a pedant - they are more likely than not to be criminals. Having worked in Crown Courts for over 30 years and seen thousands of defendants, I can count on the fingers of both hands those without previous convictions and are, therefore ‘criminals’.
November 20, 2025 at 5:06 PM
As a pedant - they are more likely than not to be criminals. Having worked in Crown Courts for over 30 years and seen thousands of defendants, I can count on the fingers of both hands those without previous convictions and are, therefore ‘criminals’.
See Guardian article and stop being so naive
November 20, 2025 at 2:50 PM
See Guardian article and stop being so naive
Not my Labour Party - turning into Reform Lite.
November 20, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Not my Labour Party - turning into Reform Lite.