Whiteley a spy, says Tomlinson

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 15 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Mar 17 1.30pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Here we have the liberal left ‘justice’ system in action: Young offenders from black or ethnic minority backgrounds could be given lighter punishments under new sentencing guidelines. Judges will be told to consider the ‘discrimination and negative experiences of authority’ they may have suffered. Courts should take into account ‘particular factors which arise in the case of black and minority ethnic children and young people’. The guidelines are the first ever instructions to courts to treat defendants differently on racial grounds. Of course. Because we know that not being able to afford the best trainers or a big flat screen and other mistreatment in the evil racist Kingdom of Britain renders people incapable of free will. People can't be blamed for mugging, robbing and murdering. It's not their fault. Society made them do it.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Mar 17 1.30pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Here we have the liberal left ‘justice’ system in action:

Young offenders from black or ethnic minority backgrounds could be given lighter punishments under new sentencing guidelines.
Judges will be told to consider the ‘discrimination and negative experiences of authority’ they may have suffered.
Courts should take into account ‘particular factors which arise in the case of black and minority ethnic children and young people’.
The guidelines are the first ever instructions to courts to treat defendants differently on racial grounds.

Of course. Because we know that not being able to afford the best trainers or a big flat screen and other mistreatment in the evil racist Kingdom of Britain renders people incapable of free will. People can't be blamed for mugging, robbing and murdering. It's not their fault. Society made them do it.

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 07 Mar 17 1.51pm
Originally posted by legaleagle Didn't get it from a website ...food for thought though,eh? Labor..??? always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 07 Mar 17 1.51pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

Didn't get it from a website

...food for thought though,eh?

Labor..???

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 07 Mar 17 2.03pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Of course. Because we know that not being able to afford the best trainers or a big flat screen and other mistreatment in the evil racist Kingdom of Britain renders people incapable of free will. People can't be blamed for mugging, robbing and murdering. It's not their fault. Society made them do it. The only reason this would need consideration is because statistics suggest that ethnic minorities are still being discriminated against (consciously or otherwise) during sentencing. A study in 2011 found that offenders from ethnic minorities are far more likely to be sentenced to prison for similar crimes than their white counterparts. For driving offences for example, black defendants were found 44% more likely to be jailed than white defendants. At one Magistrates court, for public disorder or weapons offences black defendants were 79% more likely to be jailed compared to white defendants. This was based off a study of over 500,000 cases. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 07 Mar 17 2.03pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The only reason this would need consideration is because statistics suggest that ethnic minorities are still being discriminated against (consciously or otherwise) during sentencing.

A study in 2011 found that offenders from ethnic minorities are far more likely to be sentenced to prison for similar crimes than their white counterparts.

For driving offences for example, black defendants were found 44% more likely to be jailed than white defendants.

At one Magistrates court, for public disorder or weapons offences black defendants were 79% more likely to be jailed compared to white defendants.

This was based off a study of over 500,000 cases.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Mar 17 2.15pm
Originally posted by Username The only reason this would need consideration is because statistics suggest that ethnic minorities are still being discriminated against (consciously or otherwise) during sentencing. A study in 2011 found that offenders from ethnic minorities are far more likely to be sentenced to prison for similar crimes than their white counterparts. For driving offences for example, black defendants were found 44% more likely to be jailed than white defendants. At one Magistrates court, for public disorder or weapons offences black defendants were 79% more likely to be jailed compared to white defendants. This was based off a study of over 500,000 cases. All people want is equal treatment. Not discrimination, negative or positive. Perhaps if we had judges and magistrates who lived in the real world and not the 18th century or an upper middle class bubble, that might happen.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Mar 17 2.15pm

Originally posted by Username

The only reason this would need consideration is because statistics suggest that ethnic minorities are still being discriminated against (consciously or otherwise) during sentencing.

A study in 2011 found that offenders from ethnic minorities are far more likely to be sentenced to prison for similar crimes than their white counterparts.

For driving offences for example, black defendants were found 44% more likely to be jailed than white defendants.

At one Magistrates court, for public disorder or weapons offences black defendants were 79% more likely to be jailed compared to white defendants.

This was based off a study of over 500,000 cases.

All people want is equal treatment. Not discrimination, negative or positive. Perhaps if we had judges and magistrates who lived in the real world and not the 18th century or an upper middle class bubble, that might happen.

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 07 Mar 17 2.22pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger All people want is equal treatment. Not discrimination, negative or positive. Perhaps if we had judges and magistrates who lived in the real world and not the 18th century or an upper middle class bubble, that might happen. Agreed. But as Username has pointed out that wasn't what was happening under a system that was meant to ensure equal treatment. By asking judges to consider positive discrimination, maybe that will ensure equal treatment? "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 07 Mar 17 2.22pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Agreed. But as Username has pointed out that wasn't what was happening under a system that was meant to ensure equal treatment. By asking judges to consider positive discrimination, maybe that will ensure equal treatment?

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 2.24pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Regardless of how liberal left the governments of the last 40 odd years have been, I stand by my original point - "Ye shall know then by their fruits" [Matthew 7] Blimey Matthew couldn't type could he - and boy have I set myself up for a fall by typing that. What you are describing is a post-war "Butskellism" who had their heart in the right place and probably would have described itself as progressive but to there was not a shred of liberalism in it.
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 2.24pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Regardless of how liberal left the governments of the last 40 odd years have been, I stand by my original point - "Ye shall know then by their fruits" [Matthew 7]

Blimey Matthew couldn't type could he - and boy have I set myself up for a fall by typing that.

What you are describing is a post-war "Butskellism" who had their heart in the right place and probably would have described itself as progressive but to there was not a shred of liberalism in it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Mar 17 2.27pm
Originally posted by OknotOK Agreed. But as Username has pointed out that wasn't what was happening under a system that was meant to ensure equal treatment. By asking judges to consider positive discrimination, maybe that will ensure equal treatment? Clearly that is the intention, but it is a contradiction. You are either giving people lighter sentences relative to others or you are giving them parity. The guidelines as described suggest favorable treatment. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Mar 2017 2.30pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Mar 17 2.27pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

Clearly that is the intention, but it is a contradiction.

You are either giving people lighter sentences relative to others or you are giving them parity. The guidelines as described suggest favorable treatment.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Mar 2017 2.30pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 2.31pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Certainly I think the liberal left stifle free debate. And they go further in getting people sacked for the slightest criticism of their views. Furthermore, as with their react to Brexit, they label all opposition as stupid, racist, etc. It is telling that the response of liberal left champion, Legaleagle, to Liddle's words is to post a fatuous list of'14 defining characteristics of modern fascism' - although No.15 is missing, ie:'anyone who is not liberal left must be a fascist'. Is the fact that Trump is stifling free debate by banning parts of the press from his press conferences and also trying to intimidate them by tweeting that they are the "enemy of the people" proof that Trump is part of the "liberal left"?
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 07 Mar 17 2.31pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Certainly I think the liberal left stifle free debate. And they go further in getting people sacked for the slightest criticism of their views. Furthermore, as with their react to Brexit, they label all opposition as stupid, racist, etc. It is telling that the response of liberal left champion, Legaleagle, to Liddle's words is to post a fatuous list of'14 defining characteristics of modern fascism' - although No.15 is missing, ie:'anyone who is not liberal left must be a fascist'.

Is the fact that Trump is stifling free debate by banning parts of the press from his press conferences and also trying to intimidate them by tweeting that they are the "enemy of the people" proof that Trump is part of the "liberal left"?

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 07 Mar 17 2.33pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Clearly that is the intention, but it is a contradiction. You are either giving people lighter sentences relative to others or you are giving them parity. The guidelines as described suggest favorable treatment. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Mar 2017 2.30pm) Agreed again and not really sure what the correct position should be - the status quo doesn't result in parity, but the adjustment to it is not parity in theory. Maybe judges should have league tables to show their past "performances"? "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 07 Mar 17 2.33pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Clearly that is the intention, but it is a contradiction.

You are either giving people lighter sentences relative to others or you are giving them parity. The guidelines as described suggest favorable treatment.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Mar 2017 2.30pm)

Agreed again and not really sure what the correct position should be - the status quo doesn't result in parity, but the adjustment to it is not parity in theory. Maybe judges should have league tables to show their past "performances"?

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 07 Mar 17 2.35pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger All people want is equal treatment. Not discrimination, negative or positive. Perhaps if we had judges and magistrates who lived in the real world and not the 18th century or an upper middle class bubble, that might happen. I completely agree. But for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be happening does it? Bringing it back to football, I used to be massively against any type of 'positive discrimination' in terms of managerial vacancies. You look at the numbers though and have to wonder why there aren't more black managers. In NFL, the 'Rooney rule' might sound horrible on paper, but it ensures that more candidates get a chance. You don't have to hire a minority coach, you just have to ensure you interview one. I'm still not wild about the concept, but it's hard to deny that it does work. Before the Rooney rule (2003) there were only 7 minority coaches in the history of the NFL. Since then there have been 17. Still, that is sport and there is a vast leap from there to the criminal justice system. If it's tested in a trial and proven to work then ok I suppose. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 07 Mar 17 2.35pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I completely agree.

But for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be happening does it?

Bringing it back to football, I used to be massively against any type of 'positive discrimination' in terms of managerial vacancies.

You look at the numbers though and have to wonder why there aren't more black managers. In NFL, the 'Rooney rule' might sound horrible on paper, but it ensures that more candidates get a chance. You don't have to hire a minority coach, you just have to ensure you interview one. I'm still not wild about the concept, but it's hard to deny that it does work. Before the Rooney rule (2003) there were only 7 minority coaches in the history of the NFL. Since then there have been 17.

Still, that is sport and there is a vast leap from there to the criminal justice system. If it's tested in a trial and proven to work then ok I suppose.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Mar 17 2.37pm
Originally posted by Sedlescombe Is the fact that Trump is stifling free debate by banning parts of the press from his press conferences and also trying to intimidate them by tweeting that they are the "enemy of the people" proof that Trump is part of the "liberal left"? Stifling free debate is only half of it. The liberal attitude proliferates among the gullible and young and pervades the politics of every walk of life. It is one thing to have a moral outlook, but another to use the pressure of public shaming based on the delusion of moral superiority for gain.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Mar 17 2.37pm

Originally posted by Sedlescombe

Stifling free debate is only half of it. The liberal attitude proliferates among the gullible and young and pervades the politics of every walk of life. It is one thing to have a moral outlook, but another to use the pressure of public shaming based on the delusion of moral superiority for gain.

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 07 Mar 17 2.41pm
Originally posted by OknotOK Agreed again and not really sure what the correct position should be - the status quo doesn't result in parity, but the adjustment to it is not parity in theory. Maybe judges should have league tables to show their past "performances"? There was a study featured in Matthew Syed's latest book where judges reviewing cases for potential for appeal (as an experiment, not for real appeals), where it was found that you had a much better chance of getting an appeal if you were reviewed after the judge had just eaten! The longer the sessions went on and the hungrier a judge got, the less likely he was to approve an 'appeal'. There's all sorts of sub conscious thought processes happening when people make decisions. I'm sure all of those judges were blissfully unaware of what was happening, just like I'm sure magistrates are unaware of the disparity between their decisions. Maybe if they were shown a table of previous cases it would have an impact on them. I don't think anyone is realistically accusing them all of being racist, but if there is someone way of neutralising an unknown bias then it's worth a try. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 07 Mar 17 2.41pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

Agreed again and not really sure what the correct position should be - the status quo doesn't result in parity, but the adjustment to it is not parity in theory. Maybe judges should have league tables to show their past "performances"?

There was a study featured in Matthew Syed's latest book where judges reviewing cases for potential for appeal (as an experiment, not for real appeals), where it was found that you had a much better chance of getting an appeal if you were reviewed after the judge had just eaten! The longer the sessions went on and the hungrier a judge got, the less likely he was to approve an 'appeal'.

There's all sorts of sub conscious thought processes happening when people make decisions. I'm sure all of those judges were blissfully unaware of what was happening, just like I'm sure magistrates are unaware of the disparity between their decisions. Maybe if they were shown a table of previous cases it would have an impact on them. I don't think anyone is realistically accusing them all of being racist, but if there is someone way of neutralising an unknown bias then it's worth a try.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 15 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Whiteley a spy, says Tomlinson

Site Map

Sponsors