8-Dec-2021 : LAB: 40 / CON: 34 / LDEM: 10 / GRN: 4

[John Chanin]

It was nice coming back to Birmingham to hear the accent again, which I like. Of course there are many variations, and many Birmingham residents speak a variety of Modern Standard like myself (London born). Many other residents have a distinctive mixture of Punjabi, Birmingham, and Standard. There is a clear class distinction as in other parts of the country, with the middle classes more likely to speak Standard, and accents being “softer” when locally derived.

The really strong accents come from the Black Country rather than Birmingham, and are the only ones likely to give any difficulty to people from elsewhere. The Black Country accent is quite different from Birmingham.

[John Chanin]

On voters who “don’t know” the only sensible follow up is to ask not who they might vote for, but who they definitely won’t vote for.

[Mark]

Re-the statue, I was in Bristol in the early 90's (to see Sonic Youth on their 'Dirty' tour, so it was whatever year that album cae out...92? 93?) and signed a petition to get the statue removed while I was there, which suggests...

1. The campaign to get it removed had been running for a LONG time.

and

2. It is, if not the only statue offensive to Bristolians (and any decent thinking people), the main one. My guess is only one.

[James E]

Jan 6, 2022 17:09:27 GMT tancred said:

Jan 6, 2022 16:58:45 GMT @tw said:

[Gobbledegook, with a tweet from R&W]

This is dire news for Labour.  My guess is many 'don't knows' are closet Tories temporarily in a huff with Boris.  They will come back to the fold.

I don't think your reading of this makes sense, Tancred.

It shows that among those currently saying that they 'Don't know' how they will vote (who are normally something in the region of 15-20% of the total) slightly more say they might vote Tory than that they might vote Labour (by 22% to 17%). By my maths, this means that the 'Don't Knows' would boost the Tories by about 1 point. 

So hardly 'dire': in fact, it is less than the "ICM adjustment*" that I have occasionally calculated from each party's 'DontKnows' from their GE2019 voters. This is generally around 2 points for the Tories.

*ICM used to re-allocate half of the 'Don't Knows' from each party's voters at the previous election back to the party they voted for last time. 

[hireton]

Further evidence of the slide of the Tory party towards an authoritarian approach to justice:

"MP for Ipswich Tom Hunt told the Telegraph: "If you've broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished. If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed."

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 18:01:46 GMT James E said:

Jan 6, 2022 17:09:27 GMT tancred said:

This is dire news for Labour.  My guess is many 'don't knows' are closet Tories temporarily in a huff with Boris.  They will come back to the fold.

I don't think your reading of this makes sense, Tancred.

It shows that among those currently saying that they 'Don't know' how they will vote (who are normally something in the region of 15-20% of the total) slightly more say they might vote Tory than that they might vote Labour (by 22% to 17%). By my maths, this means that the 'Don't Knows' would boost the Tories by about 1 point. 

So hardly 'dire': in fact, it is less than the "ICM adjustment*" that I have occasionally calculated from each party's 'DontKnowss' from their GE2019 voters. This is generally around 1- 2 points for the Tories.

*ICM used to re-allocate half of the 'Don't Knows' from each party's voters at the previous election back to the party they voted for last time. 

Very good comment James E and very precise.

[alec]

tancred - "Or was he just a 'cog in the machine', much like any SS guard in WW2?"

Don't know. Maybe he was.

Do they have lots of statues of SS guards in Germany?

[neilj]

Doesn't smell right

[neilj]

If it looks like sleaze and smells like sleaze, chances are it's sleaze

[barbara]

Jan 6, 2022 18:11:10 GMT hireton said:

Further evidence of the slide of the Tory party towards an authoritarian approach to justice:

"MP for Ipswich Tom Hunt told the Telegraph: "If you've broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished. If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed."

it says a  lot about the role of juries in trials and the ignorance of the average Daily Mail readers (and perhaps some stupid right wing MPs as well) as the comments on this article are full of 'enemies of the people' 'hang the judge' type comments.
Here's a nice riposte from David Allen Green.

davidallengreen.com/2022/01/the-rule-of-law-and-the-colston-four-and-why-a-jury-acquittal-shows-a-legal-system-working-and-not-being-undermined/

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 18:11:10 GMT hireton said:

Further evidence of the slide of the Tory party towards an authoritarian approach to justice:

"MP for Ipswich Tom Hunt told the Telegraph: "If you've broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished. If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed."

To be precise, the Scottish Government also wanted to abolish jury trials in 2020...

[davwel]

@ Danny 13.25pm

"" The point is, we have to transfer to relying on human post infection immunity. Using vaccines as a three-monthly antiviral injection does not make sense, and doctors are starting to object publicly to it. Most people in the Uk did not need any vaccinations, as per SA.""

That was part of your reply to news I gave that a programme of 4th CV vaccinations had started in Scotland, three months after 3rd jabs.

But I would like to know where you draw the line on those who DO need vaccinations? Do you include over-70s, over-75s, highly-shielded, NHS staff, care workers??

I would agree on the over-use of anti-biotics resulting in their overall effectiveness declining.

[turk]

Hireton

I sometimes read your news flashes mainly for a laugh due to there inaccuracies.

Just as a matter of interest did you actually read what Hunt wrote in the Telegraph I’ve just read through it ,nowhere does he suggest the Jury system should be changed infact he makes a point of saying he fully supports the Jury system.
The only points he makes are the reasonable ones that if you want a statue removed get the necessary support and then approach the local authority to get it removed. He also makes the point that criminal damage is against the law and that fact should be upheld by the law and it sets a dangerous precedent for a jury to overturn that fact.
Given that it was an unlawful act he is quite right no matter what you think of the history of slavery.

I don’t give much notice to statues ,however they usual reflect things that have happened in the past that are for good or bad part of U.K. history. There must be hundreds of statues in the U.K. that have a mix past that would offend somebody ,include many who were directly or indirectly involved in the slave trade, whether that’s a good reason to them torn down by a mob rather than by a lawful consensus is for society to decide. Personally I agree with Hunt it should be done by consensus the trouble with mobs is you never know what or who is next, especially if the previous legal trail left the people responsible free of any consequences for there actions.

[Deleted]

Whilst not unusual to have some -ve ratings then on R&W's 'issues' its all red (-ve) for CON at the moment

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 18:00:03 GMT John Chanin said:

On voters who “don’t know” the only sensible follow up is to ask not who they might vote for, but who they definitely won’t vote for.

Some companies do ask follow ups[1] and R&W partially ask a follow up question occasionally (which IMO gives a clue to potential 'tactical voting' on the ABCON side), eg

[1] EG A 'forced' type follow-up where DKs are asked if they had to pick one party then who would they vote for.

PS Whilst I'm scanning through polling companies feeds then this one is mildly interesting in that it potentially covers 'mid-term blues' (or perhaps shows most folks don't really pay attention to current polling giving next GE is 2yrs+ away). The future is not set 

[oldnat]

laszlo

"To be precise, the Scottish Government also wanted to abolish jury trials in 2020..."

Rather a misleading statement! As part of the proposals to allow trials to go ahead under the social distancing requirements of the Covid regulations, ScotGov proposed "temporary provision for the possibility of trials under solemn procedure without a jury". As that suggestion did not have the approval of the legal profession or Parliament, it was withdrawn.


spice-spotlight.scot/2020/05/14/coronavirus-covid-19-trial-by-jury/#:~:text=A%20statement%20published%20by%20the%20Scottish%20Courts%20%26,is%20not%20expected%20to%20be%20before%20June%202020.%E2%80%9D

So somewhat different from the impression that some might have gained from your brief comment.

[mandolinist]

Jan 6, 2022 17:25:27 GMT oldnat said:

tancred

"I was asking why was Colston especially picked out for 'toppling'?"

One factor was probably that the locals focussed on a statue in Bristol, rather than travelling to Golspie to topple the Chookie Sutherland.

Whether there are statues of other slave traders in Bristol that could have been toppled, I know not. However, only if there were could a question arise as to which slaver's statue in Bristol should be "picked out" to topple.

I have been absent from the board for a while or I might have replied sooner.

Edward Colston was a slave trader and effectively CEO of the largest slaving organisation in Britain. He was responsible for the enslavement and deaths of many tens of thousands of human beings. Here in Bristol he used some of his enormous wealth to endow a number of schools and other organisations which until very recently bore his name.

The statue which was toppled has stood in the centre of Bristol for just over a huundred years, the first complaint about it was made in 1921.

Over many years, attempts to replace the plaque which is on the base with one which better reflects the reality of his life have been obstructed and refused by The Merchant Venturers who with the City Council held joint responsibility for the statue.

The statue was errected by the Merchant Venturers and others at a time when the very first questions were being asked in the city about the nature of Colston and his wealth. It was a deliberate attempt to whitewash his reputation and the history of the city itself.

Having been involved in some of the historic attempts to address the lionisation of Colston which the statue exemplified, I am delighted that it is no longer in the very prominent position it previously occupied. I do, however, continue to feel conflicted about iconaclysm.

[oldnat]

Reference was made upthread to the possibility of a by-election this year in Rutherglen and Hamilton West.

Ferrier is charged with the Scots common law crime of "culpable and reckless conduct" - deliberate conduct that exposes an individual, or the public generally, to significant risk to life or health.


crime.scot/culpable-and-reckless-conduct/

Upon conviction, a custodial sentence is seldom (if ever) imposed. 

A recall petition, therefore, is only likely if the Commons Standards Committee suspends Ferrier for 10 sitting days or more - which is something they could have done at any time. Such a decision by the Committee does not rely upon the judgment of Glasgow Sheriff Court!

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 19:10:10 GMT oldnat said:

laszlo

"To be precise, the Scottish Government also wanted to abolish jury trials in 2020..."

Rather a misleading statement! As part of the proposals to allow trials to go ahead under the social distancing requirements of the Covid regulations, ScotGov proposed "temporary provision for the possibility of trials under solemn procedure without a jury". As that suggestion did not have the approval of the legal profession or Parliament, it was withdrawn.


spice-spotlight.scot/2020/05/14/coronavirus-covid-19-trial-by-jury/#:~:text=A%20statement%20published%20by%20the%20Scottish%20Courts%20%26,is%20not%20expected%20to%20be%20before%20June%202020.%E2%80%9D

So somewhat different from the impression that some might have gained from your brief comment.

In a way oldnat it was unfair, but going back in time, some were anxious about the intentions apparently.

www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/lawschool/blog/thejuryisoutonsolemntrials/

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 18:58:54 GMT @tw said:

Whilst not unusual to have some -ve ratings then on R&W's 'issues' its all red (-ve) for CON at the moment

Economy negative is the tell tale one.

[alec]

turk - "I sometimes read your news flashes mainly for a laugh due to there inaccuracies......


.....Given that it was an unlawful act he is quite right no matter what you think of the history of slavery."

Some odd statements here turk, if you don't mind me saying. Are you sure you fully understand English law? The actions of the four accused have been determined not to be unlawful, in the eyes of an English court. All good patriots should stand up tall and salute the validity of British justice, surely?

As Viscount Simonds said in Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd. [1962] AC 446, 467-468, "The law is developed by the
application of old principles to new circumstances. Therein lies its genius.”

British law develops in part by precedent, and the court in Bristol, on hearing the full accusations laid, and the acceptence of the accused that the facts of their actions were not in dispute, then considered the reasoning justifying their actions given in their defence. The court concluded that their action did not constitute an unlawful act, but was justified because of the history and circumstance around the events under consideration. Indeed, given the acceptance of part of the defence, that the presence of the statue in itself constituted a hate crime, it could potentially be infered that leaving such an object in place was an unlawful act, rather than its removal.

This is English law at its finest.

How strange that Conservatives rail against the system they worship?

[oldnat]

Laszlo

"some were anxious about the intentions apparently."

And long may folk be suspicious of the Executive, and be cautious of even a temporary limitation of human rights!

In a robust democracy, that caution oft prevails as on this occasion. In Westminster, however .......

[barbara]

Jan 6, 2022 19:17:20 GMT mandolinist said:

Jan 6, 2022 17:25:27 GMT oldnat said:

tancred

"I was asking why was Colston especially picked out for 'toppling'?"

One factor was probably that the locals focussed on a statue in Bristol, rather than travelling to Golspie to topple the Chookie Sutherland.

Whether there are statues of other slave traders in Bristol that could have been toppled, I know not. However, only if there were could a question arise as to which slaver's statue in Bristol should be "picked out" to topple.

I have been absent from the board for a while or I might have replied sooner.

Edward Colston was a slave trader and effectively CEO of the largest slaving organisation in Britain. He was responsible for the enslavement and deaths of many tens of thousands of human beings. Here in Bristol he used some of his enormous wealth to endow a number of schools and other organisations which until very recently bore his name.

The statue which was toppled has stood in the centre of Bristol for just over a huundred years, the first complaint about it was made in 1921.

Over many years, attempts to replace the plaque which is on the base with one which better reflects the reality of his life have been obstructed and refused by The Merchant Venturers who with the City Council held joint responsibility for the statue.

The statue was errected by the Merchant Venturers and others at a time when the very first questions were being asked in the city about the nature of Colston and his wealth. It was a deliberate attempt to whitewash his reputation and the history of the city itself.

Having been involved in some of the historic attempts to address the lionisation of Colston which the statue exemplified, I am delighted that it is no longer in the very prominent position it previously occupied. I do, however, continue to feel conflicted about iconaclysm.

What an excellent reply. Thanks. 
I was aware that there was a large consensus ( to address Turk's point) including within the council over many years to remove this statue  and that it had been consistently fought by the Merchant Venturers. Sometimes there is no other way to get justice and to right an historic wrong. 

It's probably ironic that a lot of the people who were outraged at the time by the toppling of the statue will be the same people now objecting to Blair receiving a knighthood on the basis of the wrongs he did in the past. Seems the wrongs of the past only matter sometimes.

[neilj]

A UK jury found in English law that the defendents were innocent. It really shouldn't be a difficult concept

[oldnat]

neilj

Or that an English jury found in English and Welsh law that the defendants were not guilty of a criminal act.

[domjg]

@tw - I wonder if that 30% of Labour voters potentially willing to vote Lib Dem are disproportionately in constituencies where the LDs are the main opposition to the Tories? Sure hope so.

[davwel]

I wonder if they are going ahead with Burning the Clavie in Burghead tonight. Supposedly they were making a decision half an hour before it starts. I.e. Now.

With the wind strong, I reckon there is more danger of inlookers catching fire than Cv. As for that stand of Arrhenatherum tall grass that gets set ablaze near the climax, well botanical succession may result if no fire happens over a 3-year period.

[jib]

oldnat

If a vacancy does arise in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, then I'd imagine Starmer will fancy the chances of his party there.

The Saltire will presumably be alongside the Union Jack for appearances north of the border.

[shevii]

I'm probably going to have overlooked various scenarios (steve might have a few he could think of) but seems to me to be OK if 12 people come to a verdict that may not be entirely based on the law of the land but is representative of what your actual population thinks should be the law of the land. I suppose it might become a problem in a redneck state with race issues (and probably has been) but I suspect a jury has more common sense for any particular scenario then the lawmakers who either didn't consider that scenario or weren't in tune with what the country wants when they made the law. Yes 12 isn't a representative sample but seems unlikely that in Bristol (or anywhere for that matter) there wouldn't have been any ROC people on the jury. It's not like there is a majority in the country for pulling down statues so maybe the jury, including rule of law types, just accepted the specific arguments of this case.

[statgeek]

Jan 6, 2022 17:06:42 GMT tancred said:

I don't think even of Rommel, who took part in the attempt on Hitler's life.

He had no part in any of it. He was generally against such actions, and favoured Hitler's removal from office. He was approached as to whether he would be willing to lead a post-Hitler government, and apparently agreed.

When the attempt happened, he was lying in hospital, following his car's unfortunate brush with some allied aircraft.

Rommel was generally pro-Hitler, until the war turned against him, and Hitler's promises of resupply didn't get fulfilled (partly due to favouring the Eastern front, and partly down to allied interception of materiel in the Mediterranean via Ultra-intercepts). Ultimately Rommel was a very vain man, who was more than happy to be in front of the camera in the early days when his team was winning.

His given theatre of battle didn't expose him to some of the more unsavoury aspects of ww2 atrocities, and his opponents in said theatre were usually not marked down as 'untermensch' by the Nazi state. No one knows how 'honouable' he would have been, had he been on the Eastern front from 1941 to 1944.