David Forrester

hmm. maybe because the best foreign players are spread out over multiple countries?

it’s a remarkably disingenuous document. Quoting leveson and then ignoring his judge and 2 mags plan. Utterly ignoring the fact that the magistrates court is going to be backlogged and there aren’t enough judges and lawyers. and removing appeal from the mags court. unfairness will be baked in

explain streamlining.

surely the last point is null. Oubre isn’t going to bring you back into a game with that amount of talent missing. Maxey is hardly comparable

agreed

Not really. but i have more sympathy for someone who changes a view from many decades ago than i do for someone who specifically campaigned and produced detailed papers directly contradicting it only a few years ago.

how long ago was that? Sounds like a bit of idealistic student nonsense (jury trials for speeding!!!).

and given Lammys previous research and public pronouncements you can also add hypocritical to that list.

particularly when those enquiries will have been prompted by a defence statement which can then be used against the defendant if it is inaccurate.

and of course until a conviction a victim is actually a complainant.

so the system works? After all fairness goes both ways and it’s tough to argue that ‘following all reasonable lines of enquiry’ is the wrong course of action.

perhaps the police should comply then?

except for the fact that it won’t impact the backlog at all.

except for the inconvenient fact that these changes won’t make any difference to delays.

she is just nuts.

who knew that nuance could be popular

how many games did nurse actually have mccain truly healthy for this season?

to be fair starmer knew that was coming and didn’t shy away from causing it.

trumps popularity in the uk is such that his criticism only strengthens starmer

damaging? It’s an absolute badge of honour for starmer

we are in a world now where demonstrating an understanding of nuance is bold.

the drones were falling first. details matter

dishonest. he hasn’t said he supports this war.

what does this mean? If you are happy with the statement you should just say so. The second paragraph is just weasel words.

it’s not. but it’s also a recognised international law doctrine.

which is good because not committing a blatant war crime is exactly what he is doing

indeed. preemptive force can be be defensive force. Thats pretty settled legal doctrine (even applies in our criminal law)

with no flights available?

or maybe just someone who believes in nuance. In a world of hot takes which really doesn’t.

hard disagree. When a british family in a hotel in dubai is killed by an iranian missile the blood would be on his hands. In firing indiscriminately across the middle east against non/combatanta the iranians are behaving as unlawfully as the americans and the israelis (but putting brits at risk)