Best Of

FPT… Police say Allison Pearson is lying and they have the body-worn-video to prove it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo

To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.

It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.

And it's possible of course that they're all lying.

It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.

Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.

The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.

I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.

If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?

Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage

What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?

(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)

A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.

FPT… Police say Allison Pearson is lying and they have the body-worn-video to prove it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo

To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.

It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.

And it's possible of course that they're all lying.

It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.

Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.

The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.

I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.

If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?

Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage

What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?

(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)

My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.

Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.

Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.

One of the most outrageous examples of this Two Tier stuff is the case of the guys who drove around Jewish north London screaming out, with megaphones, "fuck the Jews" "fuck their mothers", "rape their Jewish daughters", while waving Palestinian flags etc - and much else

Is there a clearer example of intimidatory racism and anti-Semitism? It's far worse than "from the river to the sea"

You may presume these guys were banged up. They were not. All charges were dropped. "Not enough evidence". Apart from an actual video

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/23139381.finchley-road-convoy-antisemitism-charges-dropped/

FPT… Police say Allison Pearson is lying and they have the body-worn-video to prove it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo

To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.

It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.

And it's possible of course that they're all lying.

Since Pearson forgot that she did a racist tweet then forgot she deleted it, I wouldn't put much store by her memory.

Since the police have been known to forget they were employing rapists and racists, I wouldn’t set much store by them either.

Everyone involved seems to have more memory issues than Nicola Sturgeon.

a

Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.

That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested

"Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election

Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).

Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'

The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?

The answer looks like no.

Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here

A: Trump

We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.

The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.

That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.

That was what he said he would do. Repeatedly.

The man lies with the frequency of the rotation of the fan on an ergometer rowed by Mathew Pinsent. True.

However.

In this case, he was saying that he would get all those who he thinks thwarted him, out of the way. And replace them with MAGA loyalists.

Given that this is entirely in his own interest (as he sees it), why would he not do this?

He said a lot of things last time he then didn't do.

I still think it's 50/50 whether his revolutionary zeal all fizzles out soon after January 20th tbh.

The revolution will fizzle out due to the manifest incompetence of those he is choosing to enact it.

That goes double if he guts the permanent system of government.

What remains to be seen, is how much damage he will do in the process.

FPT… Police say Allison Pearson is lying and they have the body-worn-video to prove it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo

To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.

It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.

And it's possible of course that they're all lying.

It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.

Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.

The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.

I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.

If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?

Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage

What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?

(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)

A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.

I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts

Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route

It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades

https://merip.org/2013/06/the-greek-turkish-population-exchange/

Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)

London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…

Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK

And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend

So a £100 taxi it was

Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen

FPT… Police say Allison Pearson is lying and they have the body-worn-video to prove it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo

To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.

It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.

And it's possible of course that they're all lying.

It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.

Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.

The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.

I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.

If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?

Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage

What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?

(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)

My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.

Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.

Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.

Re your last paragraph, I agree with you regarding 'support the palestinian militias' but not 'from the river to the sea'.

But I do get your point.