Forum menu
It'll stop the first time it gets reported that it's taken 8 custody officers to turkey a prisoner into the dock in leg restraints, handcuffs and a spit hood.
If, as suggested, it will be up to the Judge to decide to compel the guilty to sentencing then there may at least be a possibility that sense will prevail when it is likely that there will be unpleasant consequences of forcing attendance.
Judges will get told that Mr X refused to leave his cell this morning but the prison does not have sufficient additional resource available (or he's downstairs in the court and the private cell firm doesn't have enough staff today to drag him up). The Judge then has the choice of proceeding without him or rescheduling when they can have the resources to physically drag him there (and disrupt the court) and 9/10 times the judge is not going to make the families come back another day, the prosecutors and defence lawyers appear again and hold up a court room for it etc.
Perhaps some more with finite sentences will appear because of the threat of extra punishment. Perhaps even some life sentences will appear because their solicitors / prison officers warn them they might get dragged if they don't cooperate. But the most abhorent criminals will not. It may have been better to say that if you don't appear nothing can be said in mitigation on your behalf, but even then when a whole life order is the expected outcome those are just words.
It’ll stop the first time it gets reported that it’s taken 8 custody officers to turkey a prisoner into the dock in leg restraints, handcuffs and a spit hood
While screaming abuse about the victim, in the background of live TV coverage of the judge delivering the sentence.
Debbie McGee on J vine this morning. Bloody hell she's extreme right wing. I think I'll refer to her as sturmbannführer McGee from now on.
No surprise she was pro political corruption though 😕
The current online safety bill. It will break encryption and no online business will be safe.
And it won't actually achieve what it sets out to achieve. Or rather, what they claim it's going to set out to achieve whilst hiding behind "so you don't want to protect children then?" when challenged.
It's the online equivalent of saying that too many people's houses are being broken into, so everyone should remove their door locks so that they won't get broken.
Debbie McGee on J vine this morning. Bloody hell she’s extreme right wing.
I thought she was right wing, but not a lot.
In Scotland the private company managing prisoners movements in courts and to and from jails can't even get cooperative prisoners into the dock in some occasions. They would be waiting a long time for cons to be dragged into the dock
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/lawyers-slam-disgraceful-delays-in-court-custody-services
I can tell you what the problem is as I know someone who works for the comp. Huge staff turnover because of low pay and poor working conditions.
In 2020 the union was campaigning for a pay rise up to £12 an hour.
https://www.gmbscotland.org.uk/your-gmb/gmb-commercial-services/geoamey
A prime example of one of the essential services which should never have been privatised.
I thought she was right wing, but not a lot.
Deserves proper recognition 👏 👌
Only a really smug person would quote themselves...
politecameraaction
If the Daily Mail the government wants to see more prisoners in court being sentenced, perhaps they could hire more police officers, ensure existing police officers are less useless, ensure there are more prosecutors and Legal Aid defence lawyers, ensure there are enough judges and court staff and translators, ensure the court rooms are adequately heated or cooled or sealed from the rain…
But then:
The government has ordered urgent tests on courts built in the 1990s after dangerous concrete was found at a site in north London, the BBC has learnt.
Harrow Crown Court closed indefinitely last month because reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was found during improvement works.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66708226.amp
So the convicted can claim its a H&S risk to go to court...
Mr X is up for rape (he didn't do, and insists on this vigorously) .
He can refuse to attend for sentencing - gets another 2 years, that will later cost the country a lot of money in compo when he gets released in blaze of publicity 17 years later.
He can attend , not be contrite, and protest his innocence - as above, and the victims parents are unhappier.
He can attend, be contrite, and compromise his later appeal,
Which of the above is the best scenario, and an improvement on the current situation?
I would bring back the stocks for drunk drivers and people filmed on their mobiles