Best Of

FPT: Wyoming, then a territory, granted women suffrage shortly after the Civil War:

On December 10, 1869, territorial Governor John Allen Campbell extended the right to vote to women, making Wyoming the first territory to do so, and upon statehood became the first state to grant women's suffrage.[25] Women first served on juries in Wyoming (Laramie in 1870). Wyoming was also a pioneer in welcoming women into electoral politics.[26] It had the first female court bailiff (Mary Atkinson, Laramie, in 1870), and the first female justice of the peace in the country (Esther Hobart Morris, South Pass City, in 1870). In 1924, Wyoming was the first state to elect a female governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross, who took office in January 1925.[27] Due to its civil-rights history, one of Wyoming's state nicknames is "The Equality State", and the official state motto is "Equal Rights".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming#History
(Wyoming became a state on July 10th, 1890.)

I have long suspected that Wyoming men hoped that suffrage would lead to more women moving there. Unfortunately, much of Wyoming can be described by that old phrase: "heaven for men and dogs, hell on women and horses".

Reposting this from earlier today.

20th August, 1991.

https://x.com/EerikNKross/status/1958143840222695574
...Estonians in England call, ask whether they can help. I recommend calling their Members of Parliament and asking for support. The British government is hesitant. I spend most of the day on the phone with British politicians and Foreign Office officials. In England, unlike in many countries, a Baltic States department still exists in the foreign service. Officially the English do not recognize the Soviet occupation. Nevertheless the attitude is more cautionary than encouraging. From Tallinn not a single written overview of the situation or the government’s position arrives. They have other things to do. I write memoranda myself explaining Estonia’s positions and send them to the British government and Parliament. We must appear confident and organised (if only they knew). By the afternoon I receive orally the British semi-official position that if Estonia declares itself independent then our recognition will take “rather years than months.”

I call my father. He immediately asks whether the English will recognise us. I say, well, they wont get away without. Although in my view the situation is not good. Only years later do I understand that the situation could not have been any better. I have the feeling that I should do something more.

I get Jüri Luik on the line in Tallinn; he tells how Lennart’s boys have gone to Kadriorg (seat of the Chariman of the Supreme Council, later the Presient's office) to calm (Arnold) Rüütel, who thought that everyone would immediately be sent to Siberia. For the time being he is apparently staying put in Kadriorg.

By evening the Supreme Council and the Citizens’ Committees finally manage to reach agreement and independence is declared at 11:03PM Tallinn time, 9:03PM London. I translate the independence decision and send it to the British Foreign Office. To my surprise, the Baltic desk officer calls back and offers congratulations. “You are now the official representative of the Republic of Estonia, as far as I know the youngest in the history of the London diplomatic corps”. I myself had not yet thought of that. “I think recognition will take a few months”, she adds. “

Time has started to move faster.

Late in the evening the doorbell of the Estonian House rings. I go to open it, at the door they take my picture and say “Thank you”. A few days later a photo appears on the front page of a newspaper with the caption: “How Estonia ended up with a long-haired ambassador.”

The next day I get my hair cut short and buy my first proper suit...

FPT.
Nigelb said:

» show previous quotes
I was suggesting your obsession is with the LibDems, FWIW.

You are complaining about someone having an obsession with the Libdems on a site full of political anoraks talking about politics, betting, and mens shed TV topical issues because they happened to mention the only newsworthy thing that their party Leader Ed Davey has uttered all summer? Well its a view.

In fairness to @Nigelb it is an odd obsession. I have commented on it several times. It is regular and completely out of the blue and usually out of context and random.

I commented only the other day in a light hearted way by asking whether he was a member of the Institute of Bar Charts to be so obsessed and offended by the LDs.

PS Oh and they are not a supporter. The complete opposite. So obsessed even when there isn't any news.

Note my "FWIW".

I was having what I thought was a mild dig at Taz, in response to his saying of Davey: This moron supports them (Palestine Action) as it’s a cosy, middle class, obsession.

As the accusation was plain wrong, I thought a little pushback was merited.
FWIW.

No, I was not saying he supports Palestine Action, I don’t think that at all, I was saying he supports people who say they support them.

A bit like politicians in the eighties on the left who clearly didn’t support the IRA but happy to support people who did.

He should have qualified what he said and say the proscription is wrong in his view, if it is his view, and he gets the supporters but it is not right to support a proscribed group.

I thought he did qualify what he said. I quote: "Palestine Action has committed criminal acts and need to be prosecuted for them. They are a very worrying organisation. What we and many others found troubling was that innocent people exercising their freedom of speech and right to protest in a peaceful way in Parliament Square were arrested en masse. [...] Anyone who believes in the traditional British values of freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest should be very worried and I hope will get behind the Liberal Democrat call."

People are not being arrested for excercising their freedom of speech.

They’re being arrested for supporting, openly supporting, a proscribed terrorist group. That’s not wrong and as to their innocence or otherwise that’s for a court to decide.

The odd case where an innocent person has been arrested, like the Plasticene action guy, then clearly that’s fine.

We will have to disagree on this.

It's certainly the effect of the law - and the Home Secretary's proscription of the group - that there is a prima facie case for their arrest.
What Davey was saying very clearly, and I agree with him, is that the Home Secretary simply hasn't made a convincing case for proscribing Palestine Action in this manner.

The law in question is an exceedingly blunt instrument, which effectively gives the HS the power to criminalise legitimate protest.
Quite which side of legitimate/illegitimate this particular case falls is very much a matter of debate. But that, surely is the point ?

I find is amusing that the following position on Begum (another culture war case) upsets nearly everyone.

1) she should be bought back to this country
2) and prosecuted for the war crimes that she has stated, in multiple TV interviews she committed.

Why? She is our responsibility (so 1 is true) and 2 is equally true - as she seemingly has committed and admitted to those crimes

Why she is put responsibility? She left this country to join an enemy and is no longer a citizen

SirKeirBot again:

https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1958088441490547091

I am determined to smash the business model used by people smugglers, and I'm taking joint action with our allies to make it happen.

Building on our deal with France and renewed international cooperation, our strengthened partnership with Iraq will deter small boat arrivals and secure our borders.

Iraq, is this some new deal? How many boat arrivals are from there?

Migrant Watch says

2018: 33
2019: 468
2020: 1644
2021: 6163
2022: 4567
2023: 2500
2024: 2092

How the blinkin' flip did the Starmer Government let so many in during 2020 and 2021. I wasn't allowed to walk further than 5km from home without South Wales Police challenging me let alone cross the channel by Zodiac inflatable.

FPT.
Nigelb said:

» show previous quotes
I was suggesting your obsession is with the LibDems, FWIW.

You are complaining about someone having an obsession with the Libdems on a site full of political anoraks talking about politics, betting, and mens shed TV topical issues because they happened to mention the only newsworthy thing that their party Leader Ed Davey has uttered all summer? Well its a view.

In fairness to @Nigelb it is an odd obsession. I have commented on it several times. It is regular and completely out of the blue and usually out of context and random.

I commented only the other day in a light hearted way by asking whether he was a member of the Institute of Bar Charts to be so obsessed and offended by the LDs.

PS Oh and they are not a supporter. The complete opposite. So obsessed even when there isn't any news.

Note my "FWIW".

I was having what I thought was a mild dig at Taz, in response to his saying of Davey: This moron supports them (Palestine Action) as it’s a cosy, middle class, obsession.

As the accusation was plain wrong, I thought a little pushback was merited.
FWIW.

No, I was not saying he supports Palestine Action, I don’t think that at all, I was saying he supports people who say they support them.

A bit like politicians in the eighties on the left who clearly didn’t support the IRA but happy to support people who did.

He should have qualified what he said and say the proscription is wrong in his view, if it is his view, and he gets the supporters but it is not right to support a proscribed group.

It may be relevant to suggest that the group has been proscribed for reasons of political theatre rather than because it is a genuine security threat. Just because the government of the day makes something illegal and then prosecutes those who are now deemed to be breaking the law does not also mean that the government is immune from profound criticism for its action in banning the thing in the first place.

The trespassers at Brize should be maximally punished, and if the PA organisation is deemed to be receiving covert support from Russia, then that should also be rooted out. However using blanket "anti terror" legislation in the way the government has chosen to do is a misuse of the legislation and profoundly corrosive to free speech and our democracy. Ed Davey is right to criticize Starmer's use of the legislation and to call him out on it.

"It may be relevant to suggest that the group has been proscribed for reasons of political theatre rather than because it is a genuine security threat."

Nope - attacking military equipment is not political theatre. We could be at war tomorrow. That equipment isn't available.

The trial is going to be interesting to watch. I’m going to guess that the defence will be that they didn’t realise emptying a can of spray paint into an aircraft’s engine would cause up to £10m of damage, that they thought it would all be cleaned off the next day rather than having to totally strip down and rebuild the engines.

Ignorance is no defence. "I had no idea shoving a knife into his leg might sever an artery and see him bleed out in minutes in front of me, guv."

There is a philosophy thought-experiment which could be applied to your scenario:

Man A shoves a knife into a man's leg and severs an artery and the man dies
Man B With equivalent force and intent shoves a knife into a man's leg and misses an artery and the man is just injured

Is there a difference in the two crimes?

Intent is the usual separator. What was the intent in doing it and the events leading up to it.

Intent is nonsense, it should be risk based. Anyone who decides that they will attack someone with a deadly weapon is risking another person's life, regardless of where they aim that weapon. It should be life in prison as someone who is willing to take that kind of risk with someone else's life is a danger to the public. Whether or not they hit the artery, intentionally or otherwise, is immaterial.

As I understand it, you can be convicted of murder if your victim dies and you only intended to cause serious injury, but for attempted murder the prosecution would have to prove that the intent was to kill.

"Empty homes are on the rise. So why aren't they being used to solve the housing shortage?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3r413l5n57o

There's a little bit of hype in the piece, and it is more complex. It quotes 720k empties, which will include eg all the ones on sale, stuck in estates and so on aiui, and 265k >6 month empties - which are the real targets, which is not actually THAT many. It's only 1% of stock, which is massively lower than comparable countries.

In depth personal renovation is not so much a thing these days with eg 2 earner couples, and small LLs who would take on wrecks for rental have been hit really hard since Osborne's 2015 targeting, and increasingly savage regulation, plus all the politics. Corporate LLs won't touch small projects.

These days you will be paying expenses such as Council Tax on it as you renovate, since there will only be one lot of exemption and the previous owner will have had that and it may only have been one month ... unless eg very difficult to obtain exceptions.

Plus Council Grants, especially in London, tend to have onerous conditions (eg rent it to the Council for X years, by which time it will need another renovation).

And is it another non-statutory thing Councils have no money for?