#it's illegal and you could end up prosecuted for this

[razziecat]

That is VERY important.

Also, giving people your prescribed pain meds is still a bad idea. YOUR meds were prescribed according to YOUR needs, YOUR medical history, YOUR age and even in some cases YOUR body weight. Giving your meds to someone else is risking causing them actual harm. They might be allergic to the active or the inactive ingredients, your medications might react badly with something else they're taking or food/drink they consume, may be ineffective, or may actually be too strong for them, which could potentially lead to, among other things, the person dozing off while driving for example. DO NOT SHARE YOUR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS.

Remember kids! NEVER save left-over antibiotics! You should never have leftover antibiotics, because you have to finish the whole course! Not doing so, or giving your antibiotics to someone else who hasn’t been prescribed them is how we got superbugs, that are resistant to antibiotics! 

ALWAYS finish your antibiotics, even if you don’t think you’re sick anymore! NEVER give your antibiotics to other people, there is no guaruntee they will have any effect, or the same effect, and without a full course, will not help them even if it is the right medicine for the job. 

BOTH cases result in resistant superbugs, which are dangerous to everyone, and hurt everyone. You might think you’re helping your poorer friends who cannot afford an antibiotic/to be seen by a doctor, but you’re not. You’re just hurting everyone. 

[reasonsforhope]

An illegal toxic dump site in Croatia, the theft of water from a major aquifer in southern Spain, illegal trading of ozone-depleting refrigerants in France: This is just a sampling of the environmental crimes that European countries are struggling to stop. The lack of accountability for these acts stems in part from the European Union’s legal code, which experts say is riddled with vague definitions and gaps in enforcement. That’s about to change. 

Last week, EU lawmakers voted in a new directive that criminalizes cases of environmental damage “comparable to ecocide,” a term broadly defined as the severe, widespread, and long-term destruction of the natural world. Advocates called the move “revolutionary,” both because it sets strict penalties for violators, including up to a decade in jail, and because it marks the first time that an international body has created a legal pathway for the prosecution of ecocide.

“This decision marks the end of impunity for environmental criminals and could usher in a new age of environmental litigation in Europe,” wrote Marie Toussaint, a French lawyer and EU parliamentarian for the Greens/European Free Alliance group, on X...

The new directive uses the term “ecocide” in its preamble, but does not criminalize the act by laying out a legal definition (the most widely accepted definition of ecocide was developed by an international panel of experts in 2021). Instead, it works by providing a list of “qualified offenses,” or crimes that fall within its purview. These include pollution from ships, the introduction of invasive species, and ozone depletion...

The new law holds people liable for environmental destruction if they acted with knowledge of the damage their actions would cause. This aspect of the law is important, experts said, because it means that a permit is no longer enough for a company to avoid culpability.  

“If new information shows that behavior is causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop,” a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands, Antonius Manders, told Euronews. 

Advocates like Mehta hope that the EU’s move will have influence beyond Europe’s borders. The principal goal of the Stop Ecocide campaign is for the International Criminal Court to designate ecocide as the fifth international crime that it prosecutes, after crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and genocide. At the moment, environmental destruction can only be prosecuted as a war crime at the ICC, and limitations in the law make this extremely difficult to do...

Kate Mackintosh, the executive director of the Netherlands-based UCLA Law Promise Institute Europe, told Grist that the ICC is unlikely to adopt an ecocide law if other countries do not do so first. 

“It’s not something you can just pull out of thin air,” she said, adding that any international legal doctrine has to have a precedent on the national level. “That’s the way states are going to accept it.”

The EU’s 27 member states will have two years to adapt the new legislation into their penal codes. Afterwards, their implementation must be reviewed and updated at least once every five years using a “risk-analysis based approach,” to account for advancements in experts’ understanding of what might constitute an environmental crime. Mehta said that despite its omission of some important offenses, the law sets an important example for other countries. Several days before the EU vote, Belgium adapted its criminal code to include the directive, making it the first country in Europe to recognize ecocide as a crime.

The ruling “shows leadership and compassion,” Mehta said. “It will establish a clear moral as well as legal ‘red line’, creating an essential steer for European industry leaders and policy-makers going forward.”

-via Grist, March 6, 2024

[brotherwtf]

WHAT IF gale is an fbi/cia/secret service/whatever agent hired to infiltrate john who is maybe like a mob boss or runs a cartel or what have you. so he basically is instructed to get in john's pants and stay there yk what i'm saying?

i'm thinking the operation spans months and gale can tell john has no clue and is so absolutely in love with him. but the major problem is that gale is also starting to fall for this big broad idiot that makes him laugh and spoils him to no end.

so when gale is supposed to turn john in he drags it out, always finding an excuse to postpone it until he finally admits everything to john, tears running down his face and all. he is lowkey afraid john's gonna shoot him on the spot.

but john doesn't, of course not, and forgives gale quicker than lightning because that man is in L O V E.

maybe they run away together and become a super badass mob boss x mob wife couple and live happily ever after.

or john let's gale turn him in, kissing him while gale's colleagues are putting handcuffs on him and telling john he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. gale quits after that and since john isn't allowed any visitors gale just spends basically the rest of his life mourning him.

oh my God anon this is CINEMA someone needs to turn this into a film STAT

but yes yes, Gale being instructed to seduce the crime boss leader, someone charismatic and rules with a firm hand, but who has a soft spot for pretty things that fit perfectly on his arm, perfect for Gale to fall right into step

and so he plays hard to get at first, frequents bars that John frequents, looks at him with hooded eyes but always leaves the bar just as John's making a move, keeping him coming back for more

one day, Gale lets himself be cornered, keeps his smile small and his eyelashes low, gaze to the ground as John crowds in his space, asks him his name, calls him the prettiest damn thing he's ever seen in this bar in a long time, and Gale smiles because he has John hook, line and sinker

its easy to play John's pretty arm candy, but what he doesn't expect is how madly in love John seems to be, worshipping him, making sure that Gale's comfortable at all times, has screamed for someone to take Gale's coat whenever John goes to large meetings, always smiles so sweetly at Gale even after he's delivered a quite astonishing order, arm always firmly around Gale's waist

and John makes him laugh, makes him feel loved, makes him feel like no one else has ever felt, and oh, Gale thinks he must be falling in love with him

the mission is going quite well until Gale's boss asks him how the mission is going, asks if they have enough evidence to prosecute John and keep him in jail forever, and Gale finds his heart breaking because he can't turn John in, he loves him too much to turn him in

so he goes to John's office and just collapses to his knees, bracing himself to be shot and confesses everything, confesses that he's working for the feds and he's supposed to be investigating John, but John's the first person who seems to actually love Gale, admits he's fallen in too deep and begs John to just make his death quick, begs for some mercy

he flinches when John kneels in front of him and lifts his chin, looks in his eyes with a hard stare, and Gale expects him to pull the gun he always has on his hip on him and shoot him, but he doesn't, just looks in his eyes and lets his expression soften, pulling Gale in for a hug and a long sigh

"oh, Gale, I could never be furious at you, come on, we'll think of a plan" John says, rubbing his thumb up Gale's spine like he always did when Gale was stressed

wait maybe Gale thinks of a way to shorten John's sentence, he doesn't have to give his boss all of the evidence he found, maybe he can only get John charged for illegal possession of weapons, only a few years as opposed to life, and John agrees, better to only spend a few years in prison than to never see his love again

their reunion? absolutely insane, John basically running to Gale when he gets released, picking him up and spinning him around and kissing him endlessly, promises he'll go clean just so he can keep Gale, just so he never has to worry about losing Gale again, and then they go back to John's condo and fuck all hours of the night because John has missed Gale so so much

fuck wait what if they try to escape it all but it goes sideways, and John and Gale both get arrested, John for his crimes and Gale for assisting a criminal, maybe they're both cuffed and John lurches forward to kiss Gale one last time before they're both thrown in prison, YEOUCH I hurt my own feelings sometimes

will use this post to subtly plug my trophy wife x criminal fic

[dontforgetukraine]

"In response to attacks and accusations being directed at our film, 'Russains at War,' and myiself, I want to be clear that this Canada-France co-production is an anti-war film made atg great risk to all involved, myself especially. I unequivocally believe that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unjustified, illegal and acknowledge the validity of the International Criminal Court investigation of war crimes in Ukraine. The suggestion that our film is propaganda is ludicrous given that I'm now at risk of criminal prosecution in Russia. I also understand and empathize with the pain and anger that the subject matter may provoke in those who have suffered from this conflict. My mother emigrated to Canada, from Russia, so that we could live in a country that is devoted to freedom of expression and human rights. My hope is that our film can be assessed and discussed based on its scope and not agendas and assumptions beyond its frame, and that ultimately such discussions contribute to the war's end." —Anastasia Trofimova, Director/Producer, Russians at War (Source)

Bullshit. She's a director and producer for RT with most if not all of her films funded by RT. I guess she apparently wasn't vetted by the Canada-France co-producers.

Even if promoting Russian propaganda wasn't her intention, it can't be separated from the content. The damn trailer has soldiers saying propaganda narratives in it. (Kyiv Independent)

"Russia and Ukraine have always been inseparable. I miss the brotherly Union" reinforces the false narrative that Ukraine cannot exist as an independent state, that Russia and Ukrainian history are inseparable. Even Putin has said similar things.

“I came (to war) today so that my kids don’t go tomorrow,” conveying the belief that their military aggression in Ukraine is somehow just.

"An order was given. We went." Ah, yes, I was just following orders. Where have we heard that one before, I wonder. Not only that, it reinforces the narrative that ordinary Russians are powerless and blameless in this conflict. This isn't their war, but Putin's war. Fuck that. We know many sign up willingly such as for the money or a clean slate if they are a convict.

You can't separate the propaganda ordinary russians have been stewing in for decades and don't fight back against from this film, sweetheart. It's part of the damned context and you don't get to ignore that. Either she actually realizes that but doesn't want to say it, or she's a useful idiot. It doesn't matter which, because the result is the same.

"The fog of war is so thick that you can't see the human stories its made of."

Yes we can! This isn't the era of WW2. We can see it on Telegram! All the war crimes that are willingly committed and recorded and posted pridefully! All the ethnic slurs said to Ukrainians! All the interviews between journalists and POWs. The translations by volunteer translators showing what "ordinary Russians" on the street actually think about Ukrainians and the war. Even what the families of russian soldiers think. Never before have these stories been more accessible. That's not agendas or assumptions.

We. Can. See. It.

Just because you don't like what's in the information space doesn't mean it's not supremely relevant to the topic you're trying to shape into a narrative.

[eugenedebs1920]

What bizzaro alternate American timeline are we on? When did the United States start ignoring the Constitution? When did the good, honest, ethical citizens of this nation relinquish control over it? I must have missed that meeting because I don’t recall that sh*t

The timeline I grew up on, (although I had yet to be born) a sitting president was forced to resign over a cover up of illegal wire tapping among other things not nearly as corrupt. The timeline I grew up in a guy lost an election because he spelled potato wrong. The timeline in a guy almost got impeached because he had relations with a lady and said he didn’t. The timeline I grew up in America was the good guys. What happened!?

When did we urge the Supreme Court to allow corporations and the wealthy to purchase our elections?! When did we allow senators from Kentucky to block Supreme Court picks with no reasoning behind it?! When did we tell John Roberts racism had ended and we could remove voting protections from the Constitution!? When did we decide that a person can make fake electors to circumvent democracy, knowing lie about a stolen election to later stage a coup, then violate the Constitution again by allowing him to run for ANY federal office again? When, in any timeline can you steal classified documents, refuse to return them, then when the FBI raids where they are, there are more than 50 empty folders that once held top secret information, and you’re not locked the f*ck up!? When did we become an oligarchy?

I just don’t recall when this was acceptable. I simply can’t recall how this happened.

[matan4il]

Update post:

Yesterday, there were no less than two terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, one in the morning, and one in the evening.

The first one happened in Beersheba, where the terrorist stabbed and injured two people before being neutralized. The terrorist was an Israeli Bedouin, who had been convicted of drug-related criminal charges. The prosecution asked for his arrest, but the court decided to be lenient, to aid in his rehabilitation, and instead only sentenced him to community service. He was due to start in two weeks, but instead he chose yesterday to attack innocent civilians.

The second terrorist attack took place in Gan Yavne. A Palestinian man, who used to have a work permit in Israel, but lost it and remained here illegally, carried out the attack. The Palestinian terrorist started stabbing people at a gym and then at a nearby cafe, wounding 3 people, all of them originally determined to be in serious condition, one is a teenager, the other two are reported to have life threatening head injuries. The terrorist was 19 years old, and he was neutralized at the scene. In investigating how he managed to stay inside Israel illegally after his work permit had expired, the police has arrested two people so far.

Israel has wrapped up its second operation at the Shifa hospital in Gaza City, with another soldier pronounced dead (20 years old Nada Cohen), bringing the IDF fatalities in the Gaza ground operation so far to 256, and the total number of killed Israeli soldiers in this war, including during the Hamas massacre (reminder that some of those soldiers were girls serving in non-combative posts, without combat training or even a weapon, and were slain while still in their pajamas) to 600.

The end of one operation in a Gaza hospital doesn't mean that's the end of Hamas abusing medical and humanitarian facilities, so there are and will be more such operations. That's why I'm also sharing this reminder that nothing is sacred or even just... off limits to Hamas, who moved kidnapped civilians in ambulances, as one of the released hostages testified.

I mentioned in a post expressing my frustration over foreigners' ignorance over the conflict, which doesn't stop them from acting like they know better than the people actually living it, the Hamas-Fatah "civil war," which erupted in 2007, when Hamas killed Fatah members in Gaza and took over the place. The two Palestinian factions have tried reconciliation several times over the years, but it never lasted long. Israel's war in Gaza against Hamas and its fellow terrorists organizations is not over yet, but already there's signs of that tension. This def bodes well for Palestinians if Hamas survives this war.

A city council meeting in California, which dealt with Holocaust remembrance, ended up being the scene of some despicable displays of antisemitism in its anti-Zionist form. IDK what was most distressing to hear about, the way they screamed "Lies! Lies!"' at a Holocaust survivor, or that they took and threw to the ground the phone of a Jewish man who came to speak about his grandma who had survived the Holocaust, or that they mocked a mother speaking of her child being harassed at school to the point he doesn't wanna be a Jew, because he doesn't want to be hated... Maybe that they made my friend, who attended the meeting, cry on what was supposed to be a very special day. I saw coverage on Israeli TV of the city council, which both told me how bad it was, if of all things, that's what they're talking about, and at the same time, it was nothing like hearing about it from her. So I'm glad that she shared some of her own impressions about this ugly demonstration of hatred (I'm also scheduling her post for a reblog). I just hope Jews all over the world know that we here in Israel care about you, we love you, we are standing by your side, and we wish we could do more for you. <3

Speaking of antisemitism, and an inability to recognize it as such, to call it out and condemn it, here's some recent examples from around the world. In Spain, the locals went out for an Easter drink, a tradition called, "to kill the Jews," but insisted it's not racist. Attacking and even killing Jews actually was customary in Europe on Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter. In fact, this specific nickname is derived from those old attacks.

In London, a policeman insisted that swastikas being displayed at an anti-Israel protest were not antisemitic, and should be taken "in context," despite admitting that a symbol that's abusive or would cause public distress would fall under his jurisdiction to act against.

In the Netherlands, a single mom of a Jewish girl was attacked for the daughter's choices (she decided to move to Israel and has served in the Israeli army) both at home and at her workplace, a hospital. The mother was so rattled after the attack at her home, that she wouldn't stay there. A Jewish hotel owner offered her a free stay at his hotel. In an interview with an Israeli reporter, the mom said she's considering moving to Israel, too (source in Hebrew).

This is 32 years old Celine ben David Nagar.

She worked as an office manager at a law firm, was married to Iddo, and they had a 6 months old baby together. On Oct 7, Celine was on her way with a friend to the Nova music festival, but they never made it there. The Hamas rocket attack started first. For 10 days, she was considered missing, and it took a while, but eventually they found her body. While her fate was still unknown, two days after the massacre, Iddo went on TV and talked about the fact that Celine was still breastfeeding. Following the interview, hundreds of Israel women volunteered to donate their mother's milk to the little baby girl. At Celine's funeral, Iddo asked said goodbye to his wife, and asked hr to watch over him and little Eli from above.

May her memory be a blessing.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[classic-maya]

I know the intention of posts and messages saying "we survived the first Trump presidency, we will survive this one too" are attempting to provide comfort in this dark time in American history, but I find them to be startling.

Who do you consider to be "we?" Is it Americans? Democrats? You and me? Or human beings/society in general? Because not everyone survived Trump's first presidency. People who let their president mislead them about how critical it was to take precautions during COVID-19 and died because they contracted the disease did not survive the first Trump presidency. Women who could not receive life-saving obstetrics care in time and women who passed away from complications of an unsafe abortion did not survive the first Trump presidency. Asylum seekers who were turned away at the border and returned to violence or conditions that killed them did not survive the first Trump presidency. Victims of the January 6th attempted overthrow of our country did not survive the first Trump presidency...I could go on.

I don't say this to shame anyone who has posted something along the lines of "we will survive" because hope is of utmost importance when all seems bleak, but the privilege of the statement smacks me in the mouth every time. Because "we" collectively did not survive and "we" will not survive the next four years. We can't treat this as business-as-usual because it will kill us. Immigrant families will be deported, protections for our climate will be stripped, public health will be led by a conspiracy theorist, and a felon holding the highest office will go after American people on American soil who he deems his "enemies" and thanks to our Supreme Court he cannot be prosecuted for his illegal actions.

I wish I had a positive message to end this on, but I am in mourning for the country I grew up in. While the United States feels unrecognizable, I also know I am now seeing her more clearly than ever.

[merlins-strawberriesandroses]

I’m not very articulate unfortunately but now that I’ve made this sideblog I wanted to get some thoughts out. I do see the logic when folks say that Arthur mostly experienced bad things in regards to magic, so it makes sense why he was wary of it/didn’t alter the laws since he didn’t know about Merlin’s guardian angel tendencies/etc. BUT. If we’re going with the magic is a queer metaphor (or just using it as one of many real life parallels) then I got to say. If you’re homophobic or your dad’s a queerphobic/bigoted politician who sanctions their murder and you haven’t explicitly said oh yeah I really don’t agree with that. Then queer people will probably not go out of their way to be kind to you while also letting you know they’re queer. They’re going to be wary and many will be antagonistic, and if there are queer people in your life they’ll probably keep mum because saying anything risks their life/security, and even freedom, in a way that’s distinct and sometimes worse than the restriction of freedom the closet imposes. 

In the same vein I feel like well if magic was banned in Camelot, and we know that even innocent people using it for, idk, healing a cut, got persecuted, then why would magic users be tripping over themselves to explicitly show Arthur how they’re using “good” magic. It’d put them in danger! Even if they were being helpful they’d not be telling Arthur they were being magically helpful (on account of the tyrant father’s laws still existing). Only sorcerers who are about to Revenge it Up (or power-grab it up) will likely be found out as sorcerers (on account of the occasional monologue and gold flashing eyes as they try to stab u).

Arthur just couldn’t have realistically seen an equivalently diverse number of people doing benevolent magic as long as all magic, no exceptions, was technically still illegal. (Though he does see some instances of ‘good’ magic!)

And about magical people close to Arthur not telling him for so long (Merlin, Morgs), I think they had many understandable reasons. At one point if you live long enough in a place where various parts of your identity can be legally prosecuted, or are liable to be socially persecuted, it’s physically hard to even get the words out. From personal experience the fear is just very encompassing, and it sucks to think that you very likely have to bear agression or worse if you want to let people you care about know. Plus, for Merlin I imagine a part of the situation was that telling Arthur would risk their closeness, which is pretty important to his ability to protect him. And Merlin believes that if he protects Arthur, the prophecy dictates at some point in the future magic will be legalized (which it does become, but it’s mentioned so briefly at the end. Could we not have had a happier ending??) :( I have a lot of other thoughts on this specific topic that I’ve tearfully jotted down over the years about how I understand why Merlin didn’t tell his friends (I’m less tearful about it now haha I was just Going Through It back then), but I fear I’ll still be incomprehensible and even more rambly, so I’ll avoid doing that right now. ANYWAY sorry for the ramble. I just made this sideblog and realized I can share some of the things that have been rolling around in my mind for years. Okay now I’m gonna go back to being in denial over the ending :) 

[clairedaring]

hi! i have a question for you about the euthanasia novel, in the second book kan turns himself in and goes to prison because of the murder he committed right? nothing to do with the euthanasia cases (because wasan burns the evidence and all that), but in the series it's more like he's going to turn himself in for the euthanasia thing right? i feel like that's such a drastic change, isn't it? because one thing is going to prison because of something you know you've done wrong and other thing is knowing in your heart you did nothing wrong but still turning yourself in for... "love"? i honestly don't really get this change... what's your take on it?

Hi nonnie 🤗

I hopw you don't mind me providing you with a bit more context with the novel spoilers for discussion.

So yes Kan turned himself in for the murder of Somsak and was only charged for that. He got away completely with euthanasia since Wasan burnt all his evidence and forgave him.

Hmm... I don't know but in the framework of this being a BL novel with a pro-euthanasia writer, I think Kan getting away with euthanasia makes complete sense and that he only has to come clean about the one person he murdered. It's the least painful conclusion to Kan paying any consequences for his actions (murdering, reckless decisions made when trying to cover up his noble secret).

Another scene in the epilogue indicates that Kan only went to prison for the murdering of Somsak was this scene at dinner table where Wasan's colleague made rude remarks about how Kan definitely did euthanasia but the cops just don't have enough evidence to prove it.

I completely agree that is a huge change as opposed to the series' ending of Wasan driving Kan down the road in handcuffs.

I think both pieces of media could only work within the framework of their respective medium. In the sense that the novels' ending is very hopeful and already the least painful legal outcome for Kan.

Whereas the series was clear in its portrayal of two mindsets that clashed harshly until there was forgiveness and understanding from respective sides. It's more realistic and logical if you notice that when it's airing on TV, for every scene where Kan is euthanising someone there is this huge disclaimer that goes 'EUTHANASIA IS ILLEGAL' regardless of whether it's the scene with Wasan's mom or Boss.

I feel like I'm completely forgetting your original question. But just to back track, I think the outcome for Kan's prison sentencing would be the same regardless of whether he confesses to euthanasia or just assisting in the suicide of Boss.

As a law student (but I'm not Thai, so please just take this lightly as it may not be applicable for all jurisdictions), I don't think series!Kan will get severe penalties like death penalty for euthanasia because usually the threshold for proving there is a crime is much higher if the penalty is more severe. In any case, there has to be more evidence found to prove that Kan really did practice euthanasia rather than a mere confession of his to Wasan. If he has a good enough lawyer, they can probably make the case that Wasan tricked Kan into falling in love or coerced him into confessing.

But in any case, there must be sufficient evidence and the burden of proof will mostly be on the prosecutor should they decide to prosecute Kan.

I think the open ending of SMYM can only works for the series because it leaves enough to the viewers imagination without going into detail about what Kan will confess to the police, what is he going to be prosecuted for, is he actually going to be sentenced or are his lawyers good enough to get his case dismissed.

I'd like to interpret Kan and Wasan's final exchanges as their ways of saying I Love You. Kan firmly believes his act isn't wrong BUT he also knows that his secrecy had inadvertently caused deaths of others even if it was his doings (aka Boss murdering Nipon Songkham and Urai) and he has to pay for that somehow.

Nonnie, I'm really sorry if this doesn't accurately answer your concerns. I'm still not sure what to make of this ending as well. I guess perhaps I'm not meant to reconcile the differences between the two different endings of novel vs series Kan/Wasan.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Smith at The Guardian:

It will be a study in contrasts around age, gender, race, temperament and policy. It will also be the first time in US presidential history that a former courtroom prosecutor will take the debate stage alongside a convicted criminal with the White House at stake. Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has served as a trial lawyer, district attorney and state attorney general in California. Former US president Donald Trump, her Republican rival, has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal.

The pair will go head to head in Philadelphia on Tuesday night in their first – and perhaps only – debate, just 75 days after Joe Biden’s dire performance against Trump triggered a political earthquake that ultimately forced him from the race for the White House. Few expect such a transformative result this time. But Trump has his last best chance to end Harris’s extended “honeymoon” while the Democrat is aiming to prosecute her opponent’s glaring liabilities before tens of millions of voters watching on live television. “It’s the first time Donald Trump is actually going to be cross-examined in front of the American people,” said Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill. “Kamala Harris’s career and experience as a prosecutor, attorney general and a senator is something that Trump should not underestimate in this debate.”

This will be Trump’s seventh appearance in a national general election debate, making him the most experienced debater in US presidential history. Against Biden in June he repeated familiar falsehoods that mostly went unchallenged. Harris is expected to be a more formidable opponent and could put Trump on the defensive over facts, policy and his conduct following the 2020 election. The 59-year-old has not been shy about embracing her career in law enforcement so far in the campaign. A video at the recent Democratic national convention in Chicago declared: “That’s our choice. A prosecutor or a felon.” In a speech accepting the party’s nomination, Harris told cheering delegates: “Every day, in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and I said five words: Kamala Harris, for the people.” She has also been touting her record taking on predators and fraudsters, telling crowds across the country: “I know Donald Trump’s type!” Harris brought that experience to bear in her memorable 2018 cross-examination of Brett Kavanaugh during Senate confirmation hearings after Trump, then president, nominated him as a justice on the supreme court.

But she is unlikely to go after Trump directly over his convictions – or three other criminal cases still looming over him. When, at a rally in New Hampshire this week, an audience member shouted, “Lock him up!” Harris replied: “Well, you know what? The courts are going to handle that, and we will handle November. How about that?” In May Trump became the first former US president to be convicted of felony crimes when a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush-money payment to an adult film performer. On Friday the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, delayed Trump’s sentencing until 26 November – after the election date of 5 November. For any other candidate on a debate stage, the convictions would be a huge liability. But Trump has repeatedly rallied his base by falsely claiming that the case, and others relating to election interference and mishandling classified information, are bogus and politically motivated. Should the topic arise on Tuesday, he is likely to cast himself as a martyr and also remind viewers that he was nearly assassinated in July. The 90-minute duel, held at Philadelphia’s National Constitutional Center, will be moderated by the ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. In accordance with rules negotiated by both campaigns, there will be no live audience and candidates’ microphones will be muted when it is not their turn to speak.

The same rules seemed to work in Trump’s favour when he took on Biden in Atlanta in June. Aaron Kall, director of debate at the University of Michigan, said: “Trump adjusted well to no audience and the cutting of the microphones in Atlanta. Biden clearly didn’t. “He had never debated when there’s no audience; same thing with Harris. Not getting any feedback and not knowing how things are going, you have to trust your judgment and who’s got better media instincts than a reality television host?” The muting of the microphones may not only save Trump from himself – he interrupted Biden 71 times during their first presidential debate in 2020 – but prevent Harris offering sharp rejoinders such as “I’m speaking”, a line she delivered against Mike Pence in the vice-presidential debate four years ago. Harris and Trump have never met before in person and, in the city of Rocky Balboa, are likely to take on the roles of boxer and fighter respectively. Trump, 78, is not known for his discipline, preparation or fidelity to the truth. His debate performances, like his governing style, are typically based on gut instinct rather than considered analysis.

The first (and possibly only) debate between Kamala Harris (D) and Donald Trump (R) will take place on Tuesday with ABC as the host outlet that will air on numerous cable, streaming, and broadcast outlets.

Tuesday night is the prosecutor v. felon debate, and it’ll be an epic one in which hopefully Harris wins.

Will Harris emerge as the victor in her path to become the first woman to become President? Or will Trump win the debate to set him on a path to a return to 1600? Stay tuned.

[foreverlogical]

It long had seemed that the “stall” would be the worst thing the Supreme Court could do when it came to Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution. How naive.

Delay there will be. The six justices in the Republican-appointed supermajority held, “A former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.’” They added, “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” Rather than make clear that trying to overthrow the Constitution’s peaceful transfer of power is not an official act, the justices send the whole matter back to trial judge Tanya Chutkan. Expect more consideration, more parsing, more rulings, more appeals. It will all likely end up at the Supreme Court again in a year, if the whole prosecution isn’t shut down entirely.

But damage to our system goes well beyond delay. Trump v. U.S. astounds in its implications. It grants the president the power of a monarch. Richard Nixon defended his conduct in Watergate, telling interviewer David Frost, “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Effectively, the Supreme Court’s supermajority has now enshrined that brazen claim.

To be clear, there are reasons to be nervous about prosecuting former chief executives, so some standards make sense. In this case, though, the Court has issued an instruction manual for future lawbreaking presidents: Make sure you conspire only with other government employees. You’ll never be held to account. 

What makes something an official act? “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the justices ruled. And a jury cannot learn about the other parts of a criminal conspiracy that may involve official acts.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not agree with this last critical point. She said that of course juries can consider the context of a criminal act. Neither Justice Samuel Alito (who flew insurrectionist flags outside his two homes) nor Justice Clarence Thomas (whose wife was on the Ellipse on January 6) recused themselves. They cast the deciding votes to keep from jurors the full story of the attempted overthrow of the Constitution. 

The founders said repeatedly that presidents have no special immunity, as a brief filed by the Brennan Center on behalf of top historians made plain. After all, that was one of the very things about the British monarchy that they hated and against which they rebelled.

Even more directly, this ruling undoes the restrictions on presidential abuse of power put in place by officials and jurists of both parties since the 1970s.

The imperial presidency described an age of growing executive authority and abuse of power. It came crashing to an end during Watergate and after revelations about the misuse of intelligence and law enforcement by Nixon’s predecessors.

The presidential immunity concocted today would have blessed most of Nixon’s crimes. Nixon ordered his White House counsel to pay hush money to burglars in an Oval Office meeting on March 21, 1973. Presumptively an official act? He dangled clemency before E. Howard Hunt, one of the conspirators. Use of the pardon power — entirely immune? He resigned when a tape revealed he had ordered the CIA to go to the FBI to end the investigation of the burglars sent by his campaign committee. “Play it tough,” he told his White House chief of staff. On its face, official.

What about other criminal cases involving high officials? In the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s, numerous officials were charged (including the national security advisor and the defense secretary). Ronald Reagan faced no charges, but not because he was presumed immune. What if he did break the law — would he have escaped accountability? In 2001, federal prosecutors probed whether Bill Clinton sold pardons. They cleared him — but issuing a pardon is surely an official act.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it plainly: “Under [the majority’s] rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed ‘unofficial’ is destined to be vanishingly small.” 

So, yes, all this will delay Trump’s trial. In that sense, he gets what he craved. But the implications are far worse for the structure of American self-government.

It is a massive failure for Chief Justice John Roberts. The other major rulings on presidential accountability for legal wrongdoing have been unanimous. U.S. v. Nixon (limiting executive privilege) was written by the Republican chief justice Nixon appointed, and it was unanimous. Clinton v. Jones (opening the president to civil suit even while in office) was unanimous. Let’s grant that Roberts is an institutionalist. He is presiding over the collapse of public trust in the very institution he purports to revere.

And Trump v. U.S. has enormous implications for the future of the presidency. Remember that utterly bonkers hypothetical from the appeals court argument — that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate an opponent? Sotomayor again: “A hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics . . . has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model.” 

We read sonorous language in the majority opinion that “the president is not above the law.” But just in time for Independence Day, the Supreme Court brings us closer to having a king again.

[stephensmithuk]

The criminal courts of late Victorian England

Edit: I have made some slight corrections. CW for discussion of crimes, courts etc.

****

This does not cover Scotland, which has a rather different system. I believe it covered Wales as well.

In the 1890s, there were three types of courts someone charged with a crime could end up.

Police Court (London)/Petty Sessions Court (outside London)

These were based in each of the 'hundreds', the traditional divisions of the counties used for administrative purposes for much of the second millennium.

This is what the Essex hundreds looked like in 1832:

I live in the area of the Havering Liberty, then rural and now very much suburban, being part of the London Borough of Havering.

Chafford Hundred's name survives in that of the railway station that serves the Lakeside shopping centre and the Romford to Upminster Overground line will now be called the Liberty line. There is also a Liberty shopping centre in Romford and a Royal Liberty School.

The boundaries changed over time - as towns grew bigger, they would get their own 'petty sessional district'.

The Royal Liberty of Havering was an autonomous area of Essex, with its own courts and special exemptions from certain taxes.

Being a pretty small area with a low population before a housing boom in the 20th century, its existence was seen as an anachronism and it was on its way out in 1891; it would be fully incorporated into Essex the following year.

Romford's court in any event was located with the County Court on South Street, just north of the Great Eastern Railway station (still in use, but heavily changed inside). Looking at the historical maps, I think there's a Slug & Lettuce on the site now. The police station was close by; there may have been a tunnel linking the two buildings, but I would have to confirm that.

Anyway, these courts dealt with misdemeanours, with cases tried by one or more Justices of the Peace aka magistrates. JPs were generally unpaid and so they would often be people who could afford to do this stuff in their spare time. They'd often be local notables, like the main landowners, a rich doctor, a local priest, or someone who ran a factory. This may well have caused issues in bias.

This included things like:

A drunken punch-up outside a pub.

Domestic violence.

"Your dog bit my servant."

"You drove your cart too fast and collided with my shop window."

Solicitation i.e. prostitutes seeking business on the street.

Shoplifting, pickpocketing, burglary, and various low-level theft/fraud cases.

"You said in the newspaper I paid young men for sex" (Criminal libel, which is what Oscar Wilde charged the Marquess of Queensbury with via a private prosecution - and we know how that ended for him)

The JPs would try the case, decide on guilt or innocence, then decide any punishment; I believe the maximum possible sentence was six months. Solicitors would represent defendants.

Havering had exactly three JPs. The crime rate was pretty low in this rural area.

This 1887 article covers the workings of one London police court:

This court in Soho, which closed in 1998 and is now The Courthouse Hotel, would see a few famous names in the dock, including John Lennon (for indecency over an art exhibition, case dismissed), two Rolling Stones (fined for drugs possession) and Bob Monkhouse (for illegally importing films, acquitted at the Old Bailey).

They also served as the place for the first court appearances of people going to the higher courts like...

Quarter Sessions

These sat at the seats of each county and each county borough. The latter included places like Oxford and in the case of Essex, Southend-on-Sea after 1914.

Havering had its own quarter sessions until 1892 - the three JPs also doing these; it would then be merged into Essex. This caused a few jurisdictional issues when Essex courts charged men for crimes alleged in Havering and some cases got quashed for that reason.

For Essex, the Quarter Sessions were held at Shire Hall in Chelmsford; this closed entirely in 2012 and is now being redeveloped. In 2024, it featured in the Channel 4 documentary series The Jury: Murder Trial.

They were traditionally held four times a year - hence the name. Unless you could put up the sureties required for bail, you were going to gaol, at least until the next session. Romford had a small gaol, but it was generally more convenient to send people to Chelmsford, where the prison still operates.

Quarter sessions dealt with more serious felony cases, like armed robbery, serious assault, poaching and forging banknotes. Cases were presided over by two or more JPs, with a jury making the decision on guilt or innocence.

By 1891, most of the administrative functions of magistrates had gone to the new County Councils, but they still dealt with alcohol licence applications.

However, these courts could not deal with capital-level offences, at this point pretty much reduced to murder, treason, and piracy. These would be handled at:

Assizes

Happening twice a year in each county, these also dealt with civil matters, which are outside the remit of this post. Since these dealt with capital crimes, bail was pretty unlikely.

The country was split into six judical circuits with professional judges travelling around between the courts, often accompanied by barristers. This might sound pretty familiar to American readers; Abraham Lincoln was a circuit lawyer in Illinois and the US court system remains divided into circuits, but the judges don't ride on horses anymore. Insert your own jokes here about the judge of your choice.

Essex fell under the Home Circuit along with four other nearby counties - Middlesex had been joined up with the City of London by this point. This appears not to be linked to the term "Home Counties", which covers some areas outside.

Once the judges arrived, they would impanel juries and try all the cases before them. Only barristers could represent defendants here, I believe - a solicitor would instruct a barrister if a client were facing the Assizes.

The historical Havering gallows had been near Gallows Corner, but it had stopped being used by 1815. Gallows Corner is now home to a notorious roundabout. Chelmsford was where hangings for Essex took place.

In summary

If you punched someone in London, you'd go to the police court.

If you broke their leg, you'd go to the quarter sessions.

If you killed them, you'd go to the Assizes and quite possibly soon to the highest court of them all.

The end of the system

In 1972, this system was abolished. The petty sessions courts became magistrate's courts, with the quarter sessions and assizes combined to form Crown Courts.

Romford Magistrate's Court today sits on Main Road, next door to the police station and in close proximity to Havering's Town Hall. It covers cases in the surrounding areas to Havering as well.

The nearest Crown Court is at Snaresbrook - it's the biggest in the country with no less than 20 courtrooms.

[misfitwashere]

The Special Counsel Jack Smith just made a hell of a mistake

He enabled Trump to avoid all accountability 

ROBERT REICH

NOV 25

Friends,

Today, the rule of law was thrown out the window — not by Trump but by Special Counsel Jack Smith. 

Smith asked a federal judge to dismiss the indictment charging Trump with plotting to subvert the 2020 election. 

Smith made a similar filing to an appeals court in Atlanta, thereby ending Smith’s attempt to reverse the dismissal of the federal case accusing Trump of illegally holding on to classified documents after he left office. 

Both filings were a grave mistake. 

What happened to the rule of law? What became of the principle that no person is above the law, not even a former president? What happened to accountability?

Smith says he had no choice, given the Justice Department’s policy that it’s unconstitutional to pursue prosecutions against sitting presidents. 

But he did have a choice. He could have asked the courts to put the cases on hold until Trump is no longer president. 

That’s essentially what Judge Juan Merchan did Friday with regard to sentencing Trump on his May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

Sentencing in that case had been scheduled for Nov. 26 but has now been stayed, according to an order issued Friday by Merchan. No new date for a potential sentencing has been set, delaying it indefinitely, although it could be reimposed later.

It’s no answer to say there’s no point in trying to keep the two cases alive because Trump will force his new Attorney General to quash them. 

Let Trump do that, so all the world can see him seek to avoid accountability for what he has done. And let Trump’s Justice Department — which will likely be headed by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi — ask the federal judges involved in the two cases to dismiss them, so all the world can see Trump’s Justice Department acting as Trump’s handmaiden. 

Smith should have put the responsibility for avoiding the rule of law squarely on Trump. 

In the meantime, Smith should release all the evidence that his team has accumulated about Trump’s plot to subvert the 2020 election and illegally possess highly classified information. 

That’s my view. What do you think?

The New York City judge overseeing President-elect Donald Trump's "hush money" case said there will be no sentencing next week, as had been previously scheduled, and he will hear arguments from the defense team as to why the case should be dismissed now that Trump is president-elect.

A sentencing was scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 26, but the sentencing has now been stayed and that date is adjourned, according to an order issued Friday by Judge Juan Merchan. No new date for a potential sentencing has been set, delaying that indefinitely, though it could be reimposed later.

The judge has asked the defense team to file its motion to dismiss by Dec. 2 and prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office will have until Dec. 9 to respond.

Trump was convicted in May in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records, arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment just before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations.

In a court filing Tuesday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office opposed dismissing Trump’s case, but prosecutors expressed openness to delaying his sentencing until after his forthcoming term.

“We have significant competing constitutional interests — the office of the presidency and all the complications that come with that, and on the other hand, the sanctity of the jury verdict," D.A. Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, said Wednesday while speaking to the Citizens Crime Commission, a local civic group.

Trump's lawyers urged a judge Wednesday to scrap the case before he takes office in J

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Scotland Yard could be called in to investigate an alleged breach of the Princess of Wales’s private medical data.

The world-renowned London Clinic in Marylebone where the Princess of Wales underwent abdominal surgery in January, launched an investigation amid allegations staff attempted to access her private medical records.

After The Mirror’s world exclusive was picked up around the world this week, sources have said tonight that “up to three people” could be involved in the alleged accessing of Catherine’s medical records.

In a further bombshell, it can be revealed that the alleged breach took place after the future queen was discharged from hospital on January 29, as social media exploded with outlandish and hurtful conspiracy theories relating to her surgery.

Sources said the criminal investigation, described as “unprecedented” and now being run by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), could run alongside an additional probe by the Metropolitan Police.

Accessing someone’s medical records without cause or consent can be a criminal offence.

If the ICO investigates and finds evidence that medical records were accessed illegally, it can take action, including prosecuting and fining the person responsible in court.

The development came amid a new statement from the CEO of the The London Clinic, who said:

“There is no place at our hospital for those who intentionally breach the trust of any of our patients or colleagues.”

A source said:

“This is such a unique case that a police investigation could run alongside one by the Information Commissioner's Office.

The IOC will deal with anything as a criminal matter, which could end up in a Magistrate’s Court, but if there were further claims of wrongdoing such as a conspiracy to distribute illegally accessed information, then that could be a matter for the police.”

Scotland Yard has also been urged to launch an immediate investigation, alongside the IOC probe, over fears of a potential royal blackmail plot.

Dai Davies, the former chief superintendent and head of the royal protection unit, said:

“Anyone accused of this most serious breach of trust should be interviewed under caution at the earliest opportunity.

The implications for the royal family are far and wide, and there must be a full probe by Scotland Yard to determine if any further crimes have been committed.”

The Met Police said it had not yet received a referral, but Health Minister Maria Caulfield said today that she understood “police have been asked to look at it.”

Speaking to Sky News, she said it was "pretty serious stuff to be accessing notes that you don't have permission to."

She added:

"I say this as someone who's still on the nursing register, that the rules are very, very clear for all patients.

That unless you're looking after that patient, or they've given you their consent, you should not be looking at patients' notes.

So there are rules in place and the Information Commissioner can levy fines, that can be prosecutions, your regulator.

So as a nurse, my regulator would be the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council), can take enforcement action….and can strike you off the register if the breach is serious enough.

So there are particularly hefty implications if you are looking at notes for medical records that you should not be looking at."

Asked if the police should look into the matter, she said: "My understanding is that police have been asked to look at it - whether they take action is a matter for them.”

Fears that the King’s private medical information had also been compromised were dismissed tonight, after Charles spent three nights at the hospital during the same period as the Princess of Wales after undergoing an operation for an enlarged prostate.

Sources confirmed bosses at the hospital had informed Buckingham Palace that the alleged breach being probed did not involve the monarch.

Charles and Catherine were discharged separately just hours apart on January 29.

The King was subsequently diagnosed with “a form of cancer,” announced by Buckingham Palace on February 5.

Senior bosses at the hospital notified the IOC within 72 hours of the alleged breach of Kate’s records, in accordance with the watchdog’s guidelines.

Despite global speculation over the nature of the princess’s surgery, which has sparked wild conspiracy theories across social media and international news outlets, Kensington Palace has gone to great lengths to protect her privacy.

The palace said when Catherine was admitted that she would spend two weeks in hospital and not return to royal duties until after Easter as she continued her recovery at home.

Sources suggested the princess may decide to join the royal family on a scheduled walk to church on Easter Sunday, but no decision had yet been taken.

As the crisis intensified today following The Mirror’s revelations, Al Russell, the CEO at The London Clinic, added:

“Everyone at The London Clinic is acutely aware of our individual, professional, ethical and legal duties with regards to patient confidentiality.

We take enormous pride in the outstanding care and discretion we aim to deliver for all our patients that put their trust in us every day.

We have systems in place to monitor management of patient information and, in the case of any breach, all appropriate investigatory, regulatory and disciplinary steps will be taken.”

The General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, also said patients must have confidence that their personal information is protected "at all times."

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said:

“Clearly there are strict rules on patient data that must be followed. I think we all want to get behind the Princess of Wales and Prince of Wales and we wish her the speediest of recoveries.”

[mightyflamethrower]

Compton Business Encounters Social Justice

As local police are marginalized, the “marginalized” become ever more entitled. In the Los Angeles area, liberal utopia has been achieved. Good luck to capitalist oppressors trying to run a business:

A mob of over 100 looters purposefully crashed a Kia into a small bakery in Compton, Calif., before they flooded in and ransacked the store during a night of rampage on the streets earlier this week.

This same means of entry has been used in Chicago, which now has a mayor who sides with mobs of looters openly, instead of implicitly like most Democrats.

The thieves had gathered in the area for an illegal street takeover around 3 a.m. Tuesday before making the mile-long trek to Ruben’s Bakery & Mexican Food.

This could be why in the olden days the streets were policed rather than left to mobs of lowlife. But that was found to be racist.

Police had received two calls about a car on fire and a street takeover outside the bakery just before the looting occurred.

Maybe they thought better of intervening, lest an officer end up getting the Derek Chauvin treatment. It’s not as if any of the looters would be prosecuted anyway. Los Angeles County DA George Gascon was installed by George Soros, #1 bankroller of the Democratic Party.

No injuries or arrests were reported in Tuesday’s looting.

Of course not. If there were consequences, lawlessness would not be escalating out of control.

Ironically, the Ruben’s storefront prominently features “We Accept EBT” notices. EBT is a government-implemented form of looting, whereby taxpayers and holders of inflated US currency are the ones who get looted.

Welcome to the new Post Modern American Utopia

Thank you DEI

Thank you Democrats.

[ukrfeminism]

An unprecedented number of women are being investigated by police on suspicion of illegally ending a pregnancy, the BBC has been told.

Abortion provider MSI says it knows of up to 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared with almost zero before.

Some investigations followed natural pregnancy loss, File on 4 found.

Pregnancy loss is investigated only if credible evidence suggests a crime, the National Police Chiefs' Council says.

File on 4 has spoken to women who say that they have been "traumatised" and left feeling "suicidal" following criminal investigations lasting years.

Speaking for the first time, one woman described how she had been placed under investigation after giving birth prematurely, despite maintaining that she had never attempted an abortion.

In England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks with the approval of two doctors. However, after 10 weeks the procedure must be carried out in an approved clinic or NHS hospital.

Outside of these circumstances, deliberately ending a pregnancy remains a criminal offence in England and Wales under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which carries a maximum punishment of life in prison.

Dr Jonathan Lord, medical director at MSI, which is one of the UK's main abortion providers, believes the "unprecedented" number of women now falling under investigation may be linked to the police's increased awareness of the availability of the "pills by post" scheme - introduced in England and Wales during the Covid-19 lockdown. Scotland also introduced a similar programme.

These "telemedicine" schemes, which allow pregnancies up to 10 weeks to be terminated at home, remain in effect.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the UK's other main abortion provider, says it has received more than two dozen police requests for the medical records of women who have enquired about an abortion.

In March, MPs are due to vote on an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would fully decriminalise abortion in England and Wales.

'I just froze'

File on 4 spoke to Katie (not her real name), who has been under investigation for several years for illegally procuring an abortion.

She says she believed that she was approximately seven weeks pregnant when she contacted a provider and received abortion pills through the post.

After taking the pills at home, Katie says she went into labour and gave birth to a stillborn baby. She later realised the pregnancy had progressed beyond the 24-week limit.

"After I gave birth I just froze - nothing will ever prepare you for something like that," she says.

"I didn't know what to do. I just kept thinking: 'How did this happen? How did I not know?'"

Katie was taken to hospital, where staff called the police. She was arrested on suspicion of self-inducing an abortion illegally and held in police custody before she was released on bail.

MSI's Dr Lord says criminal investigations and prosecutions further "traumatise" women after abortions, and that women like Katie deserve "compassion" rather than "punishment".

"These women are often vulnerable and in desperate situations - they need help, and prosecuting them is not the way to do that," he says.

Katie could face a prison sentence. She maintains that she had no idea that she was over the legal time limit when she took the pills - she says she was still having regular periods and had not put on any weight.

"Being under investigation, it's such a long process and months go past without you hearing anything," she says.

"I have genuinely felt suicidal at times because of it."

Melanie McDonagh, a journalist who has written widely about abortion and believes abortion should not be fully decriminalised, says the rise in police investigations is a consequence of "pills by post" and called for in-person consultations to be reintroduced at clinics.

"If we return to the situation before telemedicine in 2020, then there would be a guard against most of these cases happening in the first place," she says.

'Outdated law'

Abortion providers say the 1861 law that makes abortion a criminal offence is no longer fit for purpose - and the increase in cases being investigated means they want abortion to be fully decriminalised.

In Scotland, abortion is criminalised under common law. Abortion was fully decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2020.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) says prosecutions under the law are rare: "We carefully consider the personal circumstances of those who end their pregnancy outside the legal parameters and address these as sensitively as possible.

"Our prosecutors have a duty to ensure that laws set by Parliament are properly considered and applied when making difficult charging decisions."

Only four women have gone on to be convicted of procuring an illegal abortion in the past 20 years. One of these women, Carla Foster, was jailed in June last year.

Another woman, Bethany Cox, was cleared of the same charge in January. Since December 2022, four more women in England have appeared in court under the law. Charges were dropped against one and discontinued in another case, while two women face a potential trial.

In some cases, women have been reported to police on suspicion of having an illegal abortion by healthcare workers, including midwives.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) issued new guidance to medical professionals in January, urging them not to report women to police if they suspected they may have illegally ended their pregnancies.

RCOG said it was concerned that "traumatised" women were being prosecuted after abortions.

But abortion providers MSI and BPAS say this does not go far enough, because women can still be subject to criminal investigation if they are reported by someone else.

However, Melanie McDonagh says health professionals should not be discouraged from contacting police and that they have a "responsibility" to both the woman and the foetus.

MPs are set to vote on the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would decriminalise abortion next month. It will become law if approved by both the House of Commons and the Lords,

Those who coerce women into abortions against their will would not be protected from prosecution if it passes.

Labour MP Diana Johnson, who tabled the amendment, says it would bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland.

But opponents of the proposed law change say it sets a dangerous precedent.

Melanie McDonagh says changing the law would be "disastrous".

She says: "If abortion was decriminalised, we would have more cases of women having abortions beyond the legal limit.

"We should be doing everything in our power to discourage this, and the law acts as a deterrent."

'Treated like criminals'

File on 4 has also found evidence of women falling under suspicion of illegally ending a pregnancy following a natural pregnancy loss - rather than taking pills - or premature birth.

Sammy, who lives with her husband and teenage son in the north of England, says she decided to have an abortion after falling pregnant last year.

But staff at the abortion clinic told Sammy she was over the legal 24-week time limit.

"I was all over the place, I searched for information about adoption and abortion," she says.

Even though abortion pills would not have been medically safe or legal to take, she says she did at one point put abortion tablets in her online basket and researched information about abortion methods as well as adoption.

She says, though, that she did not go through with the purchase of the tablets, deciding instead to come to terms with continuing the pregnancy.

But six days later, she says she started to feel unwell and realised she was going into premature labour.

Her son was born at home over three months premature, weighing only 1lb 5oz (700g).

"He was blue in colour, he wasn't breathing, so I had to start CPR on him," she says.

While she previously had wanted a termination, "that didn't mean I didn't want him to survive" after he was born, she says - and he did survive.

Sammy's husband called 999 and police and paramedics arrived. After Sammy was taken to hospital, her husband was arrested on suspicion of procuring an illegal abortion. She was told she needed to be interviewed at the police station.

"We were treated like criminals from the get-go, but we'd done nothing wrong," she says.

Sammy's husband was released on bail, but they both remained under police investigation for over a year.

Last month, Sammy was told police were dropping the investigation because of a lack of evidence.

Dr Lord said that in another case, a teenager was investigated by hospital staff after a pregnancy loss because she had previously contacted an abortion provider.

He said: "This is a national scandal, which I think we will look back on in years to come and think, how was this allowed to happen?"

The police force that handled Sammy's case said officers who arrived at her house had identified information to suggest that a crime may have been committed and a "thorough" investigation was required.

It said no-one involved would face any further police action.

Sammy says although she is relieved, she is still dealing with the impact of the investigation on her mental health.

"I still don't sleep properly because I'm still constantly worrying about being taken away," she says.

"I think without the support of my family, I wouldn't still be here."