A man who publicly beat a stranger to death in front of his wife will serve fewer than five years in prison. Demiesh Williams, 30, was jailed for manslaughter on Thursday - but will only serve up to two-thirds of his sentence before release on licence. Williams had been called out for queue-jumping in a Sainsbury's in Beckenham, south London. His victim, Andrew Clark, 43, died from his injuries three days after the March attack. After he was sentenced to fewer than five years behind bars, Mr Clark's family said the prosecution had "exposed serious shortcomings within our outdated justice system." The Clarks argued that victims are "too often left without the protection, transparency and fairness they deserve" and raised concerns about prison capacity influencing court decisions.
Slowly — very slowly — some Democrats are realising that reforming, limiting, or even banning “gender-affirming care” is not only politically viable, but morally and scientifically responsible. Yesterday, Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill, the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, passed the House with three Democrats signing on. The bill renders the provision of these treatments a Class C felony, and states explicitly that recipients of the treatments have a right to sue. It also denies federal funding for such practices, reversing course on the Obama Administration’s convoluted path to funding them: declaring it discrimination if insurance companies didn’t. The three Democrats who voted in favour of the bill hail from Texas and North Carolina, which may partly explain their willingness to cross party lines: they’re moderate Democrats representing moderate districts. Curiously, four Republicans voted against the bill, breaking party ranks on the other side. Why they did so is something of a mystery. Some represent swing districts or purple states, including Pennsylvania and Colorado. Some may think the bill is too sweeping and punitive — not just a ban, but a threat, at a time when the Right is fracturing due to extremists within its ranks. Others think the bill is overreach, and that doctors and patients should decide their medical care — an argument advanced by activists and supporters of gender-affirming care. Some may also just realise that the bill’s chances of surviving in the Senate, after Democratic gains in the midterm elections, are minimal. We shouldn’t need bills like this but, unfortunately, they are a necessary corrective. So many accumulated revelations should by now have granted permission to dissent without being branded unkind or consigned to the wrong side of history — the anxieties that still dominate liberal thinking. Increasing numbers of detransitioners, with girls as young as 12 receiving double mastectomies on healthy breasts. Doctors admitting they let the children decide which interventions they want. The low-quality evidence for these procedures. https://archive.ph/2Scdl
The scale of what they’re proposing is vast. To work, however, it requires a fully functioning criminal justice system, which is precisely what the UK doesn’t have. Police forces are so stretched that some crimes, such as shoplifting, barely get investigated at all. Trials involving the most serious offences, including rape, take years to reach court. Prisons are so overcrowded that inmates are being released early, an emergency measure soon to be codified in law by the Government’s controversial Sentencing Bill. Some offenders will avoid prison altogether or be allowed out on licence, contradicting promises in the strategy. VAWG will receive the same priority as tackling terrorism, which sounds impressive until you recall that this was first announced as part of the Strategic Policing Requirement in 2023. Then there is the question of cost. In essence, the Government is proposing to sweep away a system of prevention and investigation which is barely working at all, and replace it with a Rolls-Royce model of tackling VAWG. https://archive.ph/wiGUr