100 years ago: Lloyd George airs plans to solve the mining crisis
'That scheme,' he said, 'would have had a most beneficial effect on the mining industry but it was gibed at by the extremists of the time. Now those very men are ready to advocate it as a remedy.' As a result there was the prospect of strife and of a disastrous struggle, which had been brought about by the rejection of the proposals of which he had spoken.
The Labour candidate, Albert Purcell, he said, belonged to that section of the Labour Party that had done the most mischief in the coalfields in recent years. He and the extremists on the other side had swept away the moderate men; hence the trouble which was now being experienced. Lloyd George remarked that men like Purcell wanted the moon.
'Well, there is no coal in the moon,' said Lloyd George, 'and if men of that type get hold of England it will be as desolate as that sterile orb.'
• Robert Colvile: Keir Starmer isn't the new Attlee — but who could be?
Purcell was too much even for the working men of Coventry. They put him out and he fled to Moscow, and now he was seeking the suffrages of moderate Labour in the Forest of Dean. Lloyd George said the government had muddled the gold standard: trade had been kept down and the cost of things had increased.
This had led to the neutral markets of the world being handicapped by the most formidable competition with our exports. This resulted in the government putting up the price of coal abroad by 1s 6d per ton. That had given the advantage to Germany and the United States, he said.
⬤ At Dayton, Ohio, the jury in the evolution trial are going about their business as usual, not being confined or kept together. They are only instructed not to talk to anybody about John Scopes.
If annoyed or questioned, the jurors are authorised to call the town marshal to protect them. Most of them have returned to their farms. The 'City Fathers' are debarred from holding revival meetings on the court lawn during the sessions on account of the noise, shouting and singing, and the possibility of a collision between zealous antagonists and supporters of evolution.
• Mein Kampf at 100 — why the most reviled book in history still haunts us
The crux of the trial [Scopes was charged with violating state law by teaching Darwin's theory of evolution] comes in the argument over the admissibility of scientific evidence, which will determine the length of the trial.
Monkey man: John Scopes, second left, at his trial in 1925 for teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution in high-school science classes
HULTON ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES
The defence counsel states: 'If we are permitted to defend ourselves, the trial will last at least three weeks; but if the scientific testimony of thirty-five defence-witnesses is barred, the trial will end very quickly.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Innocent 'Beast of Birkenhead' Peter Sullivan now in line for £1.3m payout but lawyers say miscarriage of justice changes 'don't go nearly far enough'
Labour has announced an increase in maximum pay-outs to victims of miscarriages of justice – but the changes do not go far enough, lawyers have warned. The current cap on compensation payments for people wrongly jailed for 10 years or more will rise by £300,000 to £1.3million, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed today. The ceiling on payments to those wrongly jailed for up to 10 years will also rise by 30 per cent to £650,000. The increase is likely to mean that Peter Sullivan – whose conviction was quashed in May for a murder he did not commit – will now be due a higher pay-out. In one of Britain's worst miscarriages of justice Mr Sullivan spent 38 years behind bars before judges overturned his conviction for the 1986 murder of 21-year-old florist Diane Sindall. Erroneously dubbed the 'Beast of Birkenhead' after the brutal killing, Mr Sullivan had long protested his innocence. The sheer length of his wrongful jail term means he is expected to be awarded a sum to the limit of the new cap. In another high-profile case, Andrew Malkinson was wrongly jailed for rape for 17 years and finally freed two years ago. Months after his release he had received no pay-out and described himself as 'broke' and 'living in a tent'. In February it emerged Mr Malkinson had received a 'significant' six-figure interim pay-out – but his final application is yet to be resolved. Solicitor Toby Wilton, who is representing Mr Malkinson in his compensation claim, said Ms Mahmood's announcement 'does not go nearly far enough'. 'The current maximum cap on compensation of £1million was introduced in 2008,' Mr Wilton said. 'Before that, compensation was not capped at all and applicants received compensation broadly in line with what they would receive in a court of law. 'The government should return to this system, removing the arbitrary cap which unfairly penalises those who like Andrew Malkinson have suffered the longest lasting and most serious miscarriages of justice. 'While this proposal is welcome, it does not go nearly far enough.' He added: 'The Government and Parliament should think again. 'A 30 per cent increase in the cap, whilst welcome, does not come close to addressing this unfairness. 'Increased by RPI inflation, the measure the courts use to uprate compensation amounts, £1million in 2008 would be closer to £2million today.' Announcing the changes, Ms Mahmood said: 'Fairness is the ideal that underpins our justice system. 'Where it has failed to meet that ideal, victims of devastating miscarriages of justice must be able to rebuild their lives. 'This uplift will ensure victims are compensated for the crimes they did not commit and the years they cannot get back.' The exact amount of compensation is decided by an independent assessor. Applications must be made within two years of being pardoned or having a conviction quashed as a result of a newly-discovered fact.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Recent ‘tough period' is not the real existential threat facing the BBC
As understatement goes, Tim Davie appeared to have mastered it as he presented the BBC's annual report. Questions poured in over whether he had ever considered his position as a succession of problems landed on his desk this year. In response, he acknowledged he and the BBC had faced a 'tough period'. The failure to cut a Glastonbury live stream, missed opportunities to correct the behaviour of former presenter Gregg Wallace and criticism over its handling of two Gaza documentaries have seen a huge amount of opprobrium heading the BBC's way in recent weeks. The incidents, often of the BBC's own making, have handed the corporation's perennial critics plenty of material. More surprising has been the role of Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary of a Labour government, who has repeatedly targeted Davie personally over the failings. Yet for all the issues Davie has been confronting, it was the lengthy document he was presenting that spelt out the real existential threat facing the BBC. The annual report heralded some notable BBC achievements – despite the criticisms, trust in the BBC's current affairs coverage actually went up last year. However, it also hinted at a shifting media landscape and confirmed the BBC is far from immune to the effects. An array of streamers and increased global competition has seen audiences fragment. Licence fee income – the life blood of the BBC – has declined significantly in value since 2010. Worryingly, more people feel they can do without it. At the start of 2019, about 26m households paid the fee. It now stands at 23.8m households. The decline has slowed slightly, but the direction of travel is clear. Meanwhile, partly as a result of the arrival of the streamers, making TV has become more expensive. In the toughest of environments, it seems remarkable that the BBC still reached 84% of UK adults on an average week last year – and iPlayer continues to be a success story. Nor should it be ignored that the BBC is only behind the all-conquering YouTube among the most used platforms for media by 16- to 34-year-olds in the UK. Yet the massive cultural change in the habits of young viewers is clear. Just 37% of 16- to 34-year-olds said they watched BBC TV or the iPlayer on average, per week – and only for an average of about two hours. Back in 2018-19, the figure stood at 58% of the group, who watched for 2 hours 39 minutes a week. It means Davie and his team are heading towards unavoidable financial choices – do they change the licence fee model, cut costs or find some other way of making money? In reality, they are looking at all three. Their quest for more cash is showing results. Helped by Bluey, a licensing cash cow – or dog, commercial revenue has reached a record high. Its decision to charge US users for unrestricted news content is part of the search for income. On cost cutting, you don't have to read between the lines to see it is on the way – the Guardian has revealed the BBC is looking at more outsourcing and collaboration with big tech to cut costs. And then there's the licence fee. People at the top of the corporation talk of being open minded, aware that more households are not paying it. But in reality, they've drawn numerous red lines ahead of talks with ministers. No to subscription models. No to advertising. And Davie opposes a hybrid model, where everyone would pay for basic BBC services but an additional fee for all its content. So what's left? Perhaps a more progressive system asking wealthier households to pay more – or attaching it to council tax. Both are fraught with political risk. Ultimately, both the BBC and the government may be tempted to duck a radical option on reforming the licence fee. But with the media world changing so fast, it may be the last time a fudge is possible.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Fury at minister's flippant 'get on with it' comment in tense housing grilling
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook has been confronted after it emerged homes might not be brought up to a decent standard for another 10 years - despite dozens of children's deaths A housing minister has been confronted after it emerged homes might not be brought up to a decent standard for another 10 years - despite dozens of children's deaths being linked to their living conditions. Matthew Pennycook said the Government had taken "urgent action" to introduce Awaab's Law, which will force social landlords to deal with health hazards like damp and mould. But it was pointed out that an updated 'decent homes standard' may not be enforceable until 2035 at the earliest. Florence Eshalomi, a Labour MP and chair of the Commons' housing committee, hit out at Mr Pennycook after he said the last Labour government - some 15 years ago - also had a 10-year timeline, and suggested they weren't told to "get on with it". She told Mr Pennycook we "cannot compare" now to then, as she said the "situation is getting dire on a daily basis". Appearing at a committee hearing, Mr Pennycook was at first grilled by Labour MP Sarah Smith, who asked him about the slow enforcement of the decent homes standard. She said: "It's been made public that this might not be enforceable until 2035 or 2037. We have had 72 children die due to their living conditions between 2019 and 2024 so why would there be this delay. "Why are we not pushing as quickly as possible to make every landlord responsible for making sure that the homes families are living in in this country, while they await the progress of this building programme, are fit for human habitation?" Mr Pennycook said Labour was committed to "delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation". He said it wasn't "unusual" for the implementation of a new decent homes standard, on which is being consulted, to take time. He added that the last Labour government's decent home programme had a 10-year implementation timeline. The minister said urgent action had been taken to help people living with "acute hazards", by introducing Awaab's law, which subject to parliamentary scrutiny will come into force in October. "And that will require landlords to address significant damp and mould hazards and emergency hazards within fixed periods." He added that "there's no way" you could ask for an updated standard to be implemented within a year. But Ms Smith hit back: "Perhaps not within a year, but to be waiting 10 years seems extreme, given the money that is being made in this sector... Surely there could be greater urgency than 2035." When Mr Pennycook went to repeat his previous point on Awaab's law, chairwoman Ms Eshalomi interjected to ask him whether local authorities would have the capacity to carry out inspections to check landlords were sticking to the law. The housing minister said the law was bringing in a "significant change", with residents able to hold landlords to account by taking legal action. He added: "We're going to raise standards across the board, through an upgraded and modernised decent homes standard. On the timelines, as I said, the previous Labour government's decent homes programme... I don't think anyone at that point in time would have been saying, 'we think you just need to get on with it'." But Ms Eshalomi hit back: "We now have a situation where we have almost two million people on the housing waiting list. We've seen local authorities spend £2.29 billion. I don't need to read these figures to you. "The situation is getting dire on a daily basis. We cannot compare it to when the last Labour government (were in power). We keep saying we're in a housing crisis. There are issues with in temporary accommodation. Unless we do things differently, Minister, we're going to keep spending money as a sticking tape on this." Mr Pennycook said: "We are doing things differently. I think I've evidenced that we are doing things differently." Awaab's Law was first introduced and consulted on by the former Tory government. It is named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died in 2020 from a respiratory condition caused by mould at his home in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.
