It’s definitely me
I thought it was ‘lefty lawyers’ again. Like the one who pointed out that we don’t need a crime of pet theft, because we already do, it’s called theft.
Nah it’s every Police Officer accused of misconduct past or present even if they are just under investigation that has become newsworthy.
So rather than amending sentencing guidelines we get a new offence? Lol
is that a form of petty crime?
No, it’s theft committed by a Geordie
Yep, that’s the plan. Make a whole new crime to cover an issue which the stats actually show didn’t increase by anything like the amount that the scaremongering indicated.
You see, a new crime to cover something that’s already a crime covers the requirements of the ‘Something must be done’ Act.
Like the “end” of the rough sex defence, which doesn’t exist, never did exist, and the solution was to codify a House of Lords decision, changing the law not a single iota, beyond where it was written down.
I was talking about this with someone the other day, is it fully covered by R v Brown as that covered ABH and GBH? So I don’t actually see what any act would add.
Personally I don’t entirely agree with R v Brown within a free society anyway. Considering the nature of R v Brown (which was very extreme and probably could’ve been a Section 18 Woinding) and how low a threshold ABH has when you take it by the wording of the legislation.
It was a product of the time, and the exceptions to it are legion, and all based on what was morally acceptable to a panel of old white men, rather than a coherent principle.
All the new act did was codify that decision, which is all that it needed because there’s no such thing as a ‘rough sex defence’ it’s just a denial of intention to kill. But rather than engage with the campaigners and explain why their issue was misguided, the govt just applied the ‘something must be done’ Act and did something pointless to placate them.
Out of isolation now but still look like an absolute sack of doodoo. Just got refused service in coop when trying to buy a bottle of calpol as they didn’t believe I looked over 25. I’m taking that as a win
If we had games on the portal they’d be logging in.
The portal is like the sign up sheet on the noticeboard … you can take a horse to water but can’t make it drink.
Anyone with children knows the more you nag them to do something, the less likely they are to do it and banging on about it, doesn’t mean it will happen.
A problem with the Air Cadets is it is getting increasingly online with the expectation to do more at home for staff and cadets and I know our cadets “speak” online and as such losing some of what is important about ‘squadron life’. Many ex-cadets on here would go to the squadron to see mates and find out what was going on, what happened on the night was just something to do.
Trying to discuss the new hair policy on an Instagram post, and I had one guy saying that hair in a plait was a risk in the field because it could get caught in their…bergen. I just don’t even know where to start.
I’m away for one day and you start discussing R v Brown. I’ve never felt so left out
I would facepalm, but the number of ridiculous comments I’ve seen about the new hair policy since it was released has already left my forehead looking like a tomato! All over … hair
Also when they say that they “don’t agree” with it. It takes all my strength to not reply and tell them that their agreement is not requested or required.
He does know it’s not compulsory? Stupid people, can’t account for them at times.
You mean I’ve been growing a ponytail for no reason?
Just tell him to be more careful with his plaited hair then!
Tell them, tuck ponytail into collar of jacket. The IDF manage.
Or go for this Swedish solution (from 1971!) article party paywalled, unfortunately Sweden, Resigned to What Is, To Issue Hairnets to Soldiers - The New York Times
I just told the girls to go for a plait in the field, then it isn’t loose. Job jobbed.
The IDF just do nothing to be fair.
They do tuck in!