The General Politics Thread v2.0 (AKA the "Labour are Cunts" thread)

[Chris B]

21 hours ago, Loki said:

Shouldn’t we accept those findings?  Otherwise how the hell does an innocent person ever prove their innocence?

21 hours ago, Loki said:

 It all ended up in an actual court which is exactly where these things should be judged. The number of sexual misconduct allegations that make it to court is shockingly low. But then you need to accept the outcome of the trial don’t you?  If he’d been found guilty I think most people would have simply accepted that as the truth.

You don't need to prove your innocence in court. Innocence is assumed. That's the entire basis of our legal system and, while it's the best we have, it's very far from perfect and lets down rape and sexual assault victims in particular.

'You need to accept the outcome of the trial' - well, no, you don't. Because the system isn't set up to make a decision - it's purely down to whether something was proved or not. And even then, there have been wrongful convictions as a result of that process (the Robert Brown case, for example).

Because the system is imperfect, and so particularly lets down victims in crimes it's difficult or impossible to prove, some people take the default position of believing those who make accusations. That doesn't strike me as any more unreasonable than defaulting to a low conviction rate meaning that the majority of those accused were innocent.

[David]

2 minutes ago, Chris B said:

some people take the default position of believing those who make accusations. That doesn't strike me as any more unreasonable than defaulting to a low conviction rate meaning that the majority of those accused were innocent.

That's an interesting take. 

[Loki]

19 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Innocence is assumed....

'You need to accept the outcome of the trial' - well, no, you don't.

So, you assume someone's innocence before trial, but feel comfortable assuming their guilt after they've been found not guilty?  That's interesting.

It seems to me that innocence is decidedly NOT being assumed in assault cases, and legal outcomes are not being respected.  I'm not talking about Salmond particularly, I'm genuinely trying to understand how an innocent person ever gets on with their life.  I think @Keith Houchenwas suggesting they need to sue their accusers.  Is that really the direction we want to take with out legal system?  Do we think that will increase or decrease the likelihood of people coming forwards with sexual assault allegations?

I am in no doubt that many guilty people get off at trial for sexual assault, as it's incredibly hard to prove these things.  I also know that disappointingly few cases even make it to court.  This situation needs to be improved.  Women should be believed as a first principle, particularly by police.  But I'm just not comfortable with the solution to that being to assume that ALL sexual assault accusations are true, even after a court has made a verdict.  I've known two people who've been falsely accused of rape, both at uni and it genuinely messed them up for a long time and affected their ability to forge proper relationships.  An accusation shouldn't be a life sentence by default.

Edit: I should say I'm not having a go at @Chris B -  this is an incredibly complex and difficult topic and I don't have any answers particularly.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Loki

[Keith Houchen]

2 minutes ago, Loki said:

 I think @Keith Houchenwas suggesting they need to sue their accusers.

I wasn’t. 

[Loki]

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

I wasn’t. 

Apologies, Keith, I misinterpreted this.  

 

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

For all of them to be charged and convicted with the relevant offences regarding perverting the course of justice, wasting police time and malicious targeting of an individual. 
But until then, and up to a conviction, they too are all innocent until proven guilty, right? 

I don't think we want people having to get their accusers charged with perverting the course of justice either.

[Keith Houchen]

5 minutes ago, Loki said:

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

 

I don't think we want people having to get their accusers charged with perverting the course of justice either.

Yeah that was to do with a lack of conviction somehow equalling a false allegation. The way people seem to think is that a woman can walk into a police station, make a complaint, and be issued with a court date without the slightest scrutiny or investigation. 
 

I remember you once said that a case of this nature actually ending up in court shows a high probability of an offence taking place. The CPS don’t pursue the vast majority of complaints because they wouldn’t meet the threshold of proof (one persons word against another) and would be lambasted for wasting taxpayers money. 
 

In the case of Salmond, I can accept the premise that pressure was applied to take it to court despite the threshold for proof not being reached to ruin his reputation. What I don’t accept is that the allegations were manufactured from the off and didn’t happen. 

[Chris B]

22 minutes ago, Loki said:

So, you assume someone's innocence before trial, but feel comfortable assuming their guilt after they've been found not guilty?  That's interesting.

Personally, not necessarily, but I'm not required to. The legal system assumes it. Public opinion isn't required to. 

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting there's a better system. I said it's the best system we have, and I genuinely believe that's true. But that doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally flawed. But in the same way that some of the accused are telling the truth and aren't believed, it also happens that many accusers are telling the truth and aren't believed. 

In the same way you're saying 'how do those accused prove that they're telling the truth', how do those who have been raped or assaulted prove that they're telling the truth? 

As you say, there aren't any easy answers. There aren't necessarily even any good answers. But I can definitely understand why some people take the approach of defaulting to believing those who are likely getting the least justice.

I'm mainly taking issue with your original point of 'if the court says it, then we should all accept it' - we're not required to, and I think that's genuinely important. I don't see an alternative outside of stacking the decks even more in favour of rapists and abusers. 

[Keith Houchen]

5 minutes ago, Chris B said:

I'm mainly taking issue with your original point of 'if the court says it, then we should all accept it'

It also does away with any appeals process. 

[RedRooster]

7 hours ago, David said:

Because, as we've been told numerous times, when you vote for independence you don't vote for the SNP. I'm not talking about her winning those voters who are on the fence or undecided about independence over to the SNP, I'm talking about her being more appealing to those voters when it comes to independence.

Basically, they're more likely to listen to her than someone like Mhairi Black, for example. The people that Mhairi Black can convince to vote for independence are already convinced. They don't need won over.

The more conservative and slightly older demographic needs convincing if independence is ever to have a real shot.

Let's be realistic here. That sentence? It's absolutely true. However, what's also true is that there's only one party with a chance of governing the country that will hold a referendum. So if you want a referendum - if that's your priority - you can only really vote for the SNP. After independence, you can vote for whoever you like. 

There are a lot of people who feel strongly about Scottish independence - but would that outweigh their strength of feeling about issues such as trans rights, equal marriage and reproductive rights? It's inevitable that this would put some people off voting for the party. How many, exactly, is difficult to say. But I think her being there would be potentially be a real boost to Scottish Labour. 

[RedRooster]

Sorry to double post, but this story really boils my blood - not what has apparently happened, but the fact the BBC have chosen to run it in the first place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-64967941

Shall we investigate tax-avoiding Tories? Nah. How about general corruption in UK politics? Nope!

Why not focus on what really matters - holding vulnerable women desperately escaping a violent, misogynistic regime to account. 

Where is the public interest in this? The journalists behind this story - or whoever assigned it to them - should be ashamed of themselves.

[David]

5 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

Sorry to double post, but this story really boils my blood - not what has apparently happened, but the fact the BBC have chosen to run it in the first place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-64967941

Shall we investigate tax-avoiding Tories? Nah. How about general corruption in UK politics? Nope!

Why not focus on what really matters - holding vulnerable women desperately escaping a violent, misogynistic regime to account. 

Where is the public interest in this? The journalists behind this story - or whoever assigned it to them - should be ashamed of themselves.

Not to defend the Tories, but when you talk about the BBC investigating or reporting on tax-avoiding Tories, do you mean this kind of thing? Or this kind of thing when you ask about reporting on corruption in UK politics? 

I have zero doubts that the top brass at the BBC are pretty close with the UK government, and there's all sorts of backroom dealings going on there, but I think the rank and file BBC reporter tends to do quite a good job.

 

 

[RedRooster]

30 minutes ago, David said:

Not to defend the Tories, but when you talk about the BBC investigating or reporting on tax-avoiding Tories, do you mean this kind of thing? Or this kind of thing when you ask about reporting on corruption in UK politics? 

I have zero doubts that the top brass at the BBC are pretty close with the UK government, and there's all sorts of backroom dealings going on there, but I think the rank and file BBC reporter tends to do quite a good job.

I'm specifically referring to "investigating", not reporting; where the BBC leads, as opposes to follows. I'm not suggesting for a second that they don't report on things like that; but this particular story is about a BBC investigation; one that strikes me as extremely callous. What's the point? While Stanley Johnson's domestic abuse was contextualised, where is the effort to do so here? 

My comments in the initial post are, of course, slightly for effect - but I stand by the general sentiment of it. The current discussion surrounding refugees exists almost entirely as a distraction from the failings of the Conservative Party in government; which the BBC is woefully inadequate at exposing. Just because the Conservative Party and right-wing press presents something as a hot-button issue, it doesn't actually mean that it is - at least, not in the context it's presented here. 

[David]

Just now, RedRooster said:

I'm specifically referring to "investigating", not reporting; where the BBC leads, as opposes to follows. I'm not suggesting for a second that they don't report on things like that; but this particular story is about a BBC investigation; one that strikes me as extremely callous. What's the point? While Stanley Johnson's domestic abuse was contextualised, where is the effort to do so here? 

My comments in the initial post are, of course, slightly for effect - but I stand by the general sentiment of it. The current discussion surrounding refugees exists almost entirely as a distraction from the failings of the Conservative Party in government; which the BBC is woefully inadequate at exposing. Just because the Conservative Party and right-wing press presents something as a hot-button issue, it doesn't actually mean that it is - at least, not in the context it's presented here. 

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I'm fairly sure there's a definite agenda that is enforced from the top down when it comes to the coverage, especially the proactive coverage where the investigation is led by the BBC itself.

I don't think that is on the journalists of course (and I'm not saying you think it is), as I'm fairly sure that 99% of the journalists who write for the BBC believe they're doing a good job and would certainly run with a story if they were given the chance. How many have been stonewalled and blocked when they've perhaps stumbled across something that isn't particularly complimentary to those who have friends in high-up BBC offices?

I do believe however, that a lot of the coverage of refugees at the moment is simply because it's a hot-button topic that will garner clicks. And sadly, the life of many journalists (and indeed their job security) rests on producing articles which "rank" and which attracts the eyeballs of readers. Refugees and small boats are all the rage at the moment, sadly.

[RedRooster]

9 minutes ago, David said:

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I'm fairly sure there's a definite agenda that is enforced from the top down when it comes to the coverage, especially the proactive coverage where the investigation is led by the BBC itself.

So without getting too specific about why, I can speak with a degree of knowledge here (I don't work there I should add, and never have) - that's partly true, but there's a good amount of control given to journalists. As far as I'm aware, something like this would be pitched at a meeting; and the journalist would either be told to go ahead with it, or not. That's not to say a senior member of staff didn't get a tip-off, and someone else was told to take it forward. 

18 minutes ago, David said:

I don't think that is on the journalists of course (and I'm not saying you think it is), as I'm fairly sure that 99% of the journalists who write for the BBC believe they're doing a good job and would certainly run with a story if they were given the chance. How many have been stonewalled and blocked when they've perhaps stumbled across something that isn't particularly complimentary to those who have friends in high-up BBC offices?

You're right - I'm not saying that. That said, I'm sure I won't be the only one here who has friends working as journalists, and it seems very clear that a culture exists where stories are dehumanised - reporters see "the story" as opposed to the person (or people) behind the story. I would argue that this by its very nature is going to affect how a story is presented. Coupled with attempts to provide perceived balance, you end up with stories like this. In this case, I mean balance in the news agenda - "the government says this is a problem, and certain people believe that it's a problem, so therefore we should treat it as such - regardless of whether or not it is a problem."

23 minutes ago, David said:

I do believe however, that a lot of the coverage of refugees at the moment is simply because it's a hot-button topic that will garner clicks. And sadly, the life of many journalists (and indeed their job security) rests on producing articles which "rank" and which attracts the eyeballs of readers. Refugees and small boats are all the rage at the moment, sadly.

The phenomenon of manufacturing a crises to provoke clicks isn't new, sadly. The jobs of BBC journalists doesn't depend on clicks, though - much as the job of a Radio 1 DJ doesn't rely on listening figures; and the job of a BBC Scotland or BBC Alba presenter doesn't necessarily rely on viewer numbers. They have a remit to meet, and that's the important point. A pay-per-click model is definitely utilised by some UK newspaper websites though, but from the top of my head I can't quite remember which ones. 

[Loki]

This IS a story though.  It's not the most important story, but then the BBC aren't putting it on their front page as far as I can tell.  Obviously, if you could get out, you got out any way you could - but the crux of the story I think is that some women got seats on the plane pretending to be footballers when some GENUINE women footballers didn't and are still stuck there.  Which sucks doubly for them.

It's like the story the other day about the woman jailed for false rape allegations.  It's not a comfortable story, it's extremely unhelpful and will fuel unpleasant elements of the right wing, but it IS a news story.  The BBC shouldn't self-censor in the way I think you're suggesting, in my opinion.