A New Racists' Charter in the making?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Different systems; the US operates under the Electoral College.

[Imperializt Russia]

The law says it only takes ONE person to request a review for a review to be triggered. So, like I said, pretty much any person convicted of even the most innocuous terrorist offence (like the woman who was given a suspended sentence for writing poetry) can now have their sentence reviewed because some jerk off bigot in Bumblefuck, Racistown thinks she was treated too kindly.

This is not democracy, and this is not what the UK should be about.

This is pandering to right wing bigots and Brexiteers because Maggie May fucked up the election.

She was an Islamic Extremist writing poetry such as "How to Behead". It was incitement, a guide on how to kill people. She shouldn't have been let off free, she should be in prison right for teaching people how to murder.

He told Malik that if she had been convicted of the more serious charge of possessing an article for terrorist purposes - of which the jury cleared her

Court says no.

[Imperializt Russia]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Different systems; the US operates under the Electoral College.

The facts are not mutually exclusive.
Trump was not elected "by the people". He was elected by the Electoral College, a group of a couple hundred legislators who are honour-bound (but in most cases not legally-bound) to cast a vote in accordance with how their state voted, which rather questions the point of the Electoral College existing at all, and not just assigning their vote weights to the state's result and cut out the middleman.

The Electoral College only has a point if the Electors have the real option to vote against the state's majority candidate. In about a third of states, it is a criminal offence to do this, and would be considered unreasonable by many for them to do so elsewhere, despite no legal obligation.

[Greater Cesnica]

Sun Readers are brainwashed readers more often that not. They should not given any representation when it comes to judicial matters that to do not personally involve them. The Sun is essentially a Tabloid Magazine for our purposes.

[Greater Cesnica]

Also, shouldn't this be towed to the British Politics Megathread?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The facts are not mutually exclusive.

Elaborate, please.

[Imperializt Russia]

The facts are not mutually exclusive.

Elaborate, please.

See edit.

But the basic point is that "more voters voted for Hillary" and "the US selects its president through the Electoral College" are both true at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive statements.

[Greater Cesnica]

Elaborate, please.

See edit.

But the basic point is that "more voters voted for Hillary" and "the US selects its president through the Electoral College" are both true at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive statements.

They both have variations and factors that can null either one.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Different systems; the US operates under the Electoral College.

To continue from this post. (Should be noted, as pointed out by IR, the above aren't mutually exclusive.)

Whatever the case; the fact that Hillary lost in America, despite obtaining the majority vote, is irrelevant to the situation in the U.K.

[Kennlind]

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Not relevant at all. Different country, different scenario. If you think I support Trump, I don't. I think Hillary should've been the president, however I'd much prefer a two round system in the US.

[USS Monitor]

The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme has been around since 1988 and the changes will not be applied retrospectively.

And this is why I don't use clickbait titles.

Doesn't have to be applied retroactively to be a problem.

[Tybra]

I wouldn't be too worried about it being overly racist. It mostly calls for a review of sentencing which would likely adhere to some standards or measurements. I wouldn't be surprised if the Attorney General's Office would review it and discard the request for the review in some sort of automated response.

I'd be more worried about how this might cause an Attorney General's Office to just does not care. People that in some way are directly harmed by the criminal offence would want to ask for a review. However because of the (possible) increase of random reviews, the Attorney General's Office might give the pleas of people harmed with the same automatic uncaring treatment as the random demands for a review.

[Ethel mermania]

I would prefer this to be limited to the prosecutors office or the victims, but I don't have issues with lenient sentences being appealed.

In the states, I don't think prosecutors can apeall sentences.

[Minoa]

The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme has been around since 1988 and the changes will not be applied retrospectively.

And this is why I don't use clickbait titles.

Doesn't have to be applied retroactively to be a problem.

I already have some reservations, since I was thinking that something has to be done with Britain First. Maybe I am feeling too low again about the state of ethnic relations.

[Calladan]

I wouldn't be too worried about it being overly racist. It mostly calls for a review of sentencing which would likely adhere to some standards or measurements. I wouldn't be surprised if the Attorney General's Office would review it and discard the request for the review in some sort of automated response.

I'd be more worried about how this might cause an Attorney General's Office to just does not care. People that in some way are directly harmed by the criminal offence would want to ask for a review. However because of the (possible) increase of random reviews, the Attorney General's Office might give the pleas of people harmed with the same automatic uncaring treatment as the random demands for a review.

It's kind of a two part worry that's bouncing around in my head.

The way it works (as I understand it) is that someone in the public says "Well that sentence is shit" and demands a review. And then it gets handed back to the judiciary who review it. The public get no say in the actual review process - that is all done by the people who actually know what they are doing (and have some level of disinterest, unbias and legal experience). So I am not so much worried that the fact terror sentences are going to be opened up to public demands for review means the racist twats in the country are going to get their way and every person with brown skin will be banged up for life.

(At least not under the current system - see below).

No - my first problem is that currently the actual number of requests for reviews is apparently tiny compared to the number of sentences handed down. Something like 146 in the past year were reviewed, and of those a fraction were actually changed.

But now that it includes stuff that will overtly focus on people who a sizeable portion of the general public might consider to be immigrants, or Muslims, or just people they don't like because of the colour of their skin, then that number might shoot up, making the system a lot busier, and possibly a lot harder to handle. And if the department that deals with the reviews gets busier and starts finding itself with a lot more work, I am a tad concerned that standards might start to drop.

(I admit this is just preactive concern, so to speak, and I might be worrying for nothing).

And my second problem is what if no sentences are changed? What if Terrorist Number 1 gets five years for writing bad poetry, and the public go "FUCK THAT" and demand a review, and the review board go "Nah - we're leaving it at five years" and the Mail/Express/Sun run a series of stories saying these "ACTIVIST JUDGES" are putting "DECENT BRITISH LIVES AT RISK" by pursuing "LIBERAL POLICIES OF APPEASEMENT" for all these "FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS"? What happens when the right wing MPs (in the Tory Party, UKIP and beyond) start to get more support for further changes in the law, and start to think that maybe the changes haven't gone far enough?

I realise I am painting a bleak picture here, but given the level of vitriolic abuse spewed across Twitter and Facebook after the 22nd of March and the London attacks just before the election, I am pretty sure that this bleak picture is not something that is entirely impossible.

We have a jury of the people to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty. After that is should be down to a disinterest, unbiased judiciary to decide a sentence based on the law. Not on whether someone is black, white, brown, British or foreign. And it should not be down to MPs to decide by pandering to whatever hate group can shout the loudest.

[Vassenor]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Not relevant at all. Different country, different scenario. If you think I support Trump, I don't. I think Hillary should've been the president, however I'd much prefer a two round system in the US.

And in any case I consider "you think X so your views aren't relevant" to be one of the most anti-democratic things you can say.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And now, opening this up to let the public decide on "terror related offences", most of which appear to involve people with brown skin (because I have yet to see the government apply the word terrorist freely and fairly to people of all races and nationalities) is just going to give free reign to all the racists, bigots and xenophobes like Farage and his merry men who want to get the foreigners out of here.

>Most terrorist attacks in the US are committed by right wing white people
>The government does not call attacks made by white people terrorism
Pick one.

Also, Theresa May called the Finsbury attack a terrorist attack.

This doesn't sound like it's people deciding whether somebody is guilty or not. It sounds more like they're deciding whether a punishment is suitable given the severity of a crime. It seems more a defense against racism than something that enables it.

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

You're putting salt in your tea.

[Tybra]

I wouldn't be too worried about it being overly racist. It mostly calls for a review of sentencing which would likely adhere to some standards or measurements. I wouldn't be surprised if the Attorney General's Office would review it and discard the request for the review in some sort of automated response.

I'd be more worried about how this might cause an Attorney General's Office to just does not care. People that in some way are directly harmed by the criminal offence would want to ask for a review. However because of the (possible) increase of random reviews, the Attorney General's Office might give the pleas of people harmed with the same automatic uncaring treatment as the random demands for a review.

It's kind of a two part worry that's bouncing around in my head.

The way it works (as I understand it) is that someone in the public says "Well that sentence is shit" and demands a review. And then it gets handed back to the judiciary who review it. The public get no say in the actual review process - that is all done by the people who actually know what they are doing (and have some level of disinterest, unbias and legal experience). So I am not so much worried that the fact terror sentences are going to be opened up to public demands for review means the racist twats in the country are going to get their way and every person with brown skin will be banged up for life.

(At least not under the current system - see below).

No - my first problem is that currently the actual number of requests for reviews is apparently tiny compared to the number of sentences handed down. Something like 146 in the past year were reviewed, and of those a fraction were actually changed.

But now that it includes stuff that will overtly focus on people who a sizeable portion of the general public might consider to be immigrants, or Muslims, or just people they don't like because of the colour of their skin, then that number might shoot up, making the system a lot busier, and possibly a lot harder to handle. And if the department that deals with the reviews gets busier and starts finding itself with a lot more work, I am a tad concerned that standards might start to drop.

(I admit this is just preactive concern, so to speak, and I might be worrying for nothing).

And my second problem is what if no sentences are changed? What if Terrorist Number 1 gets five years for writing bad poetry, and the public go "FUCK THAT" and demand a review, and the review board go "Nah - we're leaving it at five years" and the Mail/Express/Sun run a series of stories saying these "ACTIVIST JUDGES" are putting "DECENT BRITISH LIVES AT RISK" by pursuing "LIBERAL POLICIES OF APPEASEMENT" for all these "FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS"? What happens when the right wing MPs (in the Tory Party, UKIP and beyond) start to get more support for further changes in the law, and start to think that maybe the changes haven't gone far enough?

I realise I am painting a bleak picture here, but given the level of vitriolic abuse spewed across Twitter and Facebook after the 22nd of March and the London attacks just before the election, I am pretty sure that this bleak picture is not something that is entirely impossible.

We have a jury of the people to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty. After that is should be down to a disinterest, unbiased judiciary to decide a sentence based on the law. Not on whether someone is black, white, brown, British or foreign. And it should not be down to MPs to decide by pandering to whatever hate group can shout the loudest.

I certainly agree with your first concern. We've seen this time and time again in countless of countries. Lawmakers or ministers come with some idea, but don't give the related administrative offices the time, tools or personnel needed to deal with the additional burden. It's certainly a common problem.

I don't entirely agree with your second point. Mostly it's because I'm having doubts lately on how much of the "outrage" is being treated as actual outrage or more faux outrage. If lawmakers treat the public outrage as actual outrage I agree with your concern.

However lately I've seen it being treated with something of a theatre play. Where the government doesn't take the outrage really seriously, but instead gives some symbolic appeasement that is utterly meaningless and doesn't affect anything, and the people move on to the next thing to be mad about. Which is why i would call it faux outrage, to which the government replies with lip service. It's a theatre play, that's meaningless but needs to happens else the faux outrage become actual outrage over the lack of government response. Though I'm not sure whether this applies to the UK to some extent.

[Grand Britannia]

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

*Majority of electors voted Trump

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

*Majority of electors voted Trump

The US election has nothing to do with the topic or Brexit you two.

[Gloriana Americana]

This is one of those things that works well on paper, but absolutely flops when attempted.

Like communism, for example. It sounds too good to be true, because it is. You could hear about something like this and think about all those times when somebody got an insanely light sentence for a downright horrendous offense, which outrages the general public, and so you think something like this could help fix that but, in reality it's just too susceptible to abuse by people who want harsher punishments for lesser crimes, for various reasons, such as racial bigotry as explained by the OP.

It's just a bad idea that should be avoided at all cost, we have judges and juries for the express reason of keeping mob 'justice' away from actual justice.

[Luminesa]

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Trump and Hillary both like it when you mention them in threads that have nothing to do with them, keep it up.

[Vassenor]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Trump and Hillary both like it when you mention them in threads that have nothing to do with them, keep it up.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The US election has nothing to do with the threads topic. That is the message Lumi is attempting to get across.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Trump and Hillary both like it when you mention them in threads that have nothing to do with them, keep it up.

The US election is not the topic.