NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Ed Miliband on Sky News blaming the UK government for the no-show by President Xi.
This is why no one takes Labour seriously.
The useless presenter interviewing him didn't ask him what Labour would have done to pressure China to turn up.
Tbf the government make a big deal of how Global Britain has great international clout and if they had managed to get Xi over they wouldn't have been shy to claim some credit for it. And as for what Labour would done, they could say they'd have fostered a different environment. Eg maybe no Aukus machinations. True or not, that's a respectable answer. As it is, they're the opposition. They're an alternative government not a parallel government.
On your first point, that goes back to the issue of Labour giving the impression that only the Tories have the answer.
As for Labour opposing AUKUS, that would have been a courageous position to take.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
It all comes back to my favourite word - perception. Now, I got pilloried by some on here last week for making the hardly contentious suggestion politics was largely about perception and managing perception.
The number of positive cases is on the way down and the "collapse" predicted by some may still transpire in the coming days - 293 deaths, for all it is a lagging indicator, is also a nagging indicator reminding us the true cost of this virus isn't measured by GDP numbers but by families who have lost loved ones.
I'm optimistic - the vaccination numbers are all the optimism one should need - as to where we go after the third vaccination, will we need a fourth next spring or will we get longer and better protection as vaccines evolve?
Perception - on the environment, as much as any other issue, the perceptions of governments and the governed are what matters. An end to deforestation by 2030 would be a huge step and the fact Brazil has signed up is at least encouraging but how will we enforce or confirm it and what damage will be done between now and then?
The Global Methane Pledge again reads as a huge step forward and the perception among many will be that Governments are serious and getting serious about climate change and the tone of all the speeches in the past 48 hours has emphasised that commitment.
And yet - we were here before with Kyoto and Paris. If all the talk is just hot air, COP26 will simply be an exercise in public delusion. Where is the sanction for those who don't live up to their commitments - those who lead in 2030 can't be coming back to another city after another decade of inaction and proclaiming "something must be done".
The impacts of climate change will be worst for the poorest but all parts will feel the effects whether actual or vicariously.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review?
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Why specifically JFK?
RFK Jr is a big believer in antivax and Covid is a hoax beliefs. Reflected glory.
The other thing about current UK case numbers (which I haven't seen remarked on anywhere, yet) is that they seem to be much higher as a proportion of populations in rural areas than in the cities. The contrast is quite striking:
I assume it's related to the fact that most of the positive cases relate to under 18s. This implies that cities have generally lower proportions of under 18s than rural areas, which is, as far as I can see, completely wrong. I think it's possible that (somehow) cities have fewer teenagers than rural areas on average, but the difference probably isn't big enough to explain the entire trend. It's pretty well established that cities have lower levels of vaccinations than average, so the only other explanation I can think of is that the cities have gone through the final wave faster and are now significantly and noticeably ahead of the game in terms of pacing the decline.
What else even is there? Children in cities are more likely to refuse testing? Inner city schools aren't reporting positive cases?
I'd assumed this was because Covid rates were lower in rural areas during the pre-vaccine waves of infection because it was easier for people to keep their distance and rates of transmission were consequently lower.
Now, in the post-vaccine phase where most NPIs have been dropped there is a bit of catching up to do to fill in the gaps of immunity. So there's a stronger, later exit wave in rural areas because they avoided more deaths before the vaccine.
Indeed. See also why London has been flatlining for yonks and is the most dovish region of the UK.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
There's nowt so malleable as the human brain. I would love to hear what they say when JFK doesn't appear.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
We'd just have to get Trump to make an announcement that he expects his followers to back the QAnon theories.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
There's nowt so malleable as the human brain. I would love to hear what they say when JFK doesn't appear.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Allowing someone to intervene and get the rules changed when they don't like the outcome to avoid punishment, because they have powerful mates, when that was not the process it was being conducted under, looks plenty shady to me. I don't think most people have the option of getting their mates to pause a process, 'review' the rules, and they hope invent a new one to apply retrospectively. Problems of process can be reviewed later, or they should have put in a different process for appealing before they started.
What you suggest of his actions is no fairer than applying a retrospective punishment in my book, and if that's a principle of justice being played out I'm a monkey's uncle.
It all comes back to my favourite word - perception. Now, I got pilloried by some on here last week for making the hardly contentious suggestion politics was largely about perception and managing perception.
The number of positive cases is on the way down and the "collapse" predicted by some may still transpire in the coming days - 293 deaths, for all it is a lagging indicator, is also a nagging indicator reminding us the true cost of this virus isn't measured by GDP numbers but by families who have lost loved ones.
I'm optimistic - the vaccination numbers are all the optimism one should need - as to where we go after the third vaccination, will we need a fourth next spring or will we get longer and better protection as vaccines evolve?
Perception - on the environment, as much as any other issue, the perceptions of governments and the governed are what matters. An end to deforestation by 2030 would be a huge step and the fact Brazil has signed up is at least encouraging but how will we enforce or confirm it and what damage will be done between now and then?
The Global Methane Pledge again reads as a huge step forward and the perception among many will be that Governments are serious and getting serious about climate change and the tone of all the speeches in the past 48 hours has emphasised that commitment.
And yet - we were here before with Kyoto and Paris. If all the talk is just hot air, COP26 will simply be an exercise in public delusion. Where is the sanction for those who don't live up to their commitments - those who lead in 2030 can't be coming back to another city after another decade of inaction and proclaiming "something must be done".
The impacts of climate change will be worst for the poorest but all parts will feel the effects whether actual or vicariously.
Firstly, the 293 is a double dump of days, so half it or ignore it.
Second, your bizarre posts about ‘perception’ were in reply to people posting - er - actual covid numbers, hence why you were pulled up on it.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Why specifically JFK?
RFK Jr is a big believer in antivax and Covid is a hoax beliefs. Reflected glory.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
Do QAnon types actually have money to put where their mouth is? I automatically assume any of them who have means don't actually believe the performative nonsense they spout.
I suppose lots of them have stimulus checks, at least. Unless they've already spent them on Bitcoin...
"Former Kent and England bowler Alan Igglesden dies aged 57 PCA pays tribute to ‘absolute inspiration’ and ‘cricketing giant’ Igglesden played three times for England between 1989 and 1994"
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
Do QAnon types actually have money to put where their mouth is? I automatically assume any of them who have means don't actually believe the performative nonsense they spout.
I suppose lots of them have stimulus checks, at least. Unless they've already spent them on Bitcoin...
If they spent their stimulus checks on Bitcoin they'd be quids in at the moment.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Why specifically JFK?
RFK Jr is a big believer in antivax and Covid is a hoax beliefs. Reflected glory.
TSE has not ruled himself out as JFK. If you transpose the three letters of TSE with three completely different letters you get JFK. Coincidence? I’ve never seen a photo of TSE and JFK together. PB is the perfect cover,
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
Do QAnon types actually have money to put where their mouth is? I automatically assume any of them who have means don't actually believe the performative nonsense they spout.
I suppose lots of them have stimulus checks, at least. Unless they've already spent them on Bitcoin...
They lost tens of millions backing Trump after he had lost the election, some losing six figure sums that were their lifes savings. So yes, they do have significant cash which they are willing to bet on their beliefs coming true.
Oh dear, he's been ritually humiliated for months and yesterday's fishing u-turn won't have helped his mood. If he wasn't such a massive arsehole I'd be more sympathetic.
He calls Morrison a liar, Morrison discloses messages showing he is not a liar, Macron complains about the disclosure of the messages.
The last few months have been going pretty poorly for Macron. I think his attitude on Brexit has been a big factor in the UK seeking to undermine him or at least taking pleasure in it happening.
Emmanuel has been doing a pretty good job undermining himself. Don't think Boris has been exerting himself too much TBH. Remember the old saying - the current French President is always worse than his predecessor. You'd have thought after Hollande that would be for the birds, for Macron seems to be making a late play for maintaining the tradition.
Hollande was the future. Once.
No he was not!
Hollande was the French Starmer, he gives hope to Sir Keir that dull as dishwater leftwing leaders can win 1 election against a charismatic conservative incumbent after a long period of conservative rule.
On the down side for Sir Keir, Hollande also proved so unpopular he did not even run for re election
He was caught out playing away from home with a young writer/actress? riding a motorbike in full black leather gear. He was also fecking useless as President.
That doesn't sound like Keir Starmer at all. So I disagree with HYUFD here. Unless he's saying Hollande was "Starmer on a bike with full leathers".
You're sure about that?
Well he's supposedly dull as ditchwater. Roaring down the Mall on a Kawasaki 750 in full leathers on his way to a triste with Dua Lipa would tend to give the lie to that.
Kawasaki H2 Mach IV Widowmaker and I might consider voting for him, Z750 meh.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
Do QAnon types actually have money to put where their mouth is? I automatically assume any of them who have means don't actually believe the performative nonsense they spout.
I suppose lots of them have stimulus checks, at least. Unless they've already spent them on Bitcoin...
You would believe wrong.
I keep on banging on about cultural cognition on this site, but I guess no one is listening. As Mr Smithson Jr so aptly summarized it "I will believe what I think people who share my values believe" Check out Kahan's work on cultural cognition, or Jonah Berger's work on Zone of Acceptance (similar to the Overton window)
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Why specifically JFK?
RFK Jr is a big believer in antivax and Covid is a hoax beliefs. Reflected glory.
He's also married/dating Cheryl from Curb Your Enthusiasm, and my house was (very briefly) in shot in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, which proves that PB is actually just a QAnon front organisation.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Allowing someone to intervene and get the rules changed when they don't like the outcome to avoid punishment, because they have powerful mates, when that was not the process it was being conducted under, looks plenty shady to me. I don't think most people have the option of getting their mates to pause a process, 'review' the rules, and they hope invent a new one to apply retrospectively. Problems of process can be reviewed later, or they should have put in a different process for appealing before they started.
What you suggest of his actions is no fairer than applying a retrospective punishment when it comes to fairness in my book, and if that's a principle of justice I'm a monkey's uncle.
In almost every walk of life if there's an unfair process, then you'd be able to appeal that either internally or to a tribunal or a court. If you have the person who undertook the review finding you 'guilty' putting in writing that they'd made up their mind you're guilty before they even spoke to you, then you'd have very good grounds for such an appeal too.
Parliamentary sovereignty means that there's no appeal process here. The person who has written they made their mind up he was guilty before even speaking to him is judge, jury and executioner with nobody to appeal to.
Having one person deeming you're guilty before they even talk to you, having a closed mind throughout, then no possibility of appeal isn't justice. If it was any other walk of life the courts would be available for appeals but they're not here.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Why specifically JFK?
RFK Jr is a big believer in antivax and Covid is a hoax beliefs. Reflected glory.
He's also married/dating Cheryl from Curb Your Enthusiasm, and my house was (very briefly) in shot in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, which proves that PB is actually just a QAnon front organisation.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour; and he gets another £12k from the food company involved) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
Oh dear, he's been ritually humiliated for months and yesterday's fishing u-turn won't have helped his mood. If he wasn't such a massive arsehole I'd be more sympathetic.
He calls Morrison a liar, Morrison discloses messages showing he is not a liar, Macron complains about the disclosure of the messages.
The last few months have been going pretty poorly for Macron. I think his attitude on Brexit has been a big factor in the UK seeking to undermine him or at least taking pleasure in it happening.
Emmanuel has been doing a pretty good job undermining himself. Don't think Boris has been exerting himself too much TBH. Remember the old saying - the current French President is always worse than his predecessor. You'd have thought after Hollande that would be for the birds, for Macron seems to be making a late play for maintaining the tradition.
Hollande was the future. Once.
No he was not!
Hollande was the French Starmer, he gives hope to Sir Keir that dull as dishwater leftwing leaders can win 1 election against a charismatic conservative incumbent after a long period of conservative rule.
On the down side for Sir Keir, Hollande also proved so unpopular he did not even run for re election
He was caught out playing away from home with a young writer/actress? riding a motorbike in full black leather gear. He was also fecking useless as President.
That doesn't sound like Keir Starmer at all. So I disagree with HYUFD here. Unless he's saying Hollande was "Starmer on a bike with full leathers".
You're sure about that?
Well he's supposedly dull as ditchwater. Roaring down the Mall on a Kawasaki 750 in full leathers on his way to a triste with Dua Lipa would tend to give the lie to that.
Kawasaki H2 Mach IV Widowmaker and I might consider voting for him, Z750 meh.
Hollande was on one of those daft scooters with two front wheels, not a motorbike.
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review?
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour; and he gets another £12k from the food company involved) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I think they want to complain about the lack.of correct procedure.. not use procedure.. a guilty verdict before the evidence has been.presented is not correct procedure,....
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review?
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
I had an open mind. Then I read the report.
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
It would be possible to not discount every point he makes, or indeed every point someone makes about an investigative process being flawed - we know they are not always done properly - without thinking that the way he and his backers are seeking to alter processes part way through, is a proportionate or reasonable approach.
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
Oh dear, he's been ritually humiliated for months and yesterday's fishing u-turn won't have helped his mood. If he wasn't such a massive arsehole I'd be more sympathetic.
He calls Morrison a liar, Morrison discloses messages showing he is not a liar, Macron complains about the disclosure of the messages.
The last few months have been going pretty poorly for Macron. I think his attitude on Brexit has been a big factor in the UK seeking to undermine him or at least taking pleasure in it happening.
Emmanuel has been doing a pretty good job undermining himself. Don't think Boris has been exerting himself too much TBH. Remember the old saying - the current French President is always worse than his predecessor. You'd have thought after Hollande that would be for the birds, for Macron seems to be making a late play for maintaining the tradition.
Hollande was the future. Once.
No he was not!
Hollande was the French Starmer, he gives hope to Sir Keir that dull as dishwater leftwing leaders can win 1 election against a charismatic conservative incumbent after a long period of conservative rule.
On the down side for Sir Keir, Hollande also proved so unpopular he did not even run for re election
He was caught out playing away from home with a young writer/actress? riding a motorbike in full black leather gear. He was also fecking useless as President.
That doesn't sound like Keir Starmer at all. So I disagree with HYUFD here. Unless he's saying Hollande was "Starmer on a bike with full leathers".
You're sure about that?
Well he's supposedly dull as ditchwater. Roaring down the Mall on a Kawasaki 750 in full leathers on his way to a triste with Dua Lipa would tend to give the lie to that.
Kawasaki H2 Mach IV Widowmaker and I might consider voting for him, Z750 meh.
Hollande was on one of those daft scooters with two front wheels, not a motorbike.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
I had an open mind. Then I read the report.
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
Considering the report has been accused of saying things that are false, that the person who wrote the report was prejudiced and that there was a litany of other failures . . . if that's true then saying "but the report says that's not true" isn't a defence of the report.
Your logic is fallacious as Christians saying they believe in the Bible because they're Christian and they're Christian because of what the Bible tells them.
If the report is prejudiced, then the report you read is prejudiced. In any decent system there is always an appeal process if there are serious allegations, this is the first time this has come up that there's been a requirement for an appeal here and its a flaw in the system that no appeal process has been built into it.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour; and he gets another £12k from the food company involved) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I think they want to complain about the lack.of correct procedure.. not use procedure.. a guilty verdict before the evidence has been.presented is not correct procedure,....
Read the report. It's not true that a 'guilty verdict was reached before the evidence was presented'. I know it's really boring to look at actual evidence. But read the report.....
Firstly, the 293 is a double dump of days, so half it or ignore it.
Second, your bizarre posts about ‘perception’ were in reply to people posting - er - actual covid numbers, hence why you were pulled up on it.
Much though I enjoy arguing with you, I've better things to do with my life.
Perception is not about the actual virus numbers - it's about how the numbers are presented and the conclusions the public are invited to draw from that presentation.
Try thinking about that before throwing around words like "bizarre".
Hundreds of QAnon supporters are currently traveling from all across the U.S. to Dallas, where they expect to see John F. Kennedy suddenly reappear on Tuesday night and ordain former President Donald Trump as the “king of kings.”
Shadsy has been late to open a market on this.
You know, that's not a bad idea.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
Do QAnon types actually have money to put where their mouth is? I automatically assume any of them who have means don't actually believe the performative nonsense they spout.
I suppose lots of them have stimulus checks, at least. Unless they've already spent them on Bitcoin...
Trump supporters poured in untold millions to the 2020 Election winner market even after states had certified results.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
It would be possible to not discount every point he makes, or indeed every point someone makes about an investigative process being flawed - we know they are not always done properly - without thinking that the way he and his backers are seeking to alter processes part way through, is a proportionate or reasonable approach.
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
If a man [or woman] has been unfairly 'convicted' by someone who was prejudiced and has said in writing that they'd made their mind up before even speaking to them . . . then do you think that person deserves the right to appeal that judgment or not?
In any other walk of life there's an appeal process. Why not here?
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Allowing someone to intervene and get the rules changed when they don't like the outcome to avoid punishment, because they have powerful mates, when that was not the process it was being conducted under, looks plenty shady to me. I don't think most people have the option of getting their mates to pause a process, 'review' the rules, and they hope invent a new one to apply retrospectively. Problems of process can be reviewed later, or they should have put in a different process for appealing before they started.
What you suggest of his actions is no fairer than applying a retrospective punishment when it comes to fairness in my book, and if that's a principle of justice I'm a monkey's uncle.
In almost every walk of life if there's an unfair process, then you'd be able to appeal that either internally or to a tribunal or a court. If you have the person who undertook the review finding you 'guilty' putting in writing that they'd made up their mind you're guilty before they even spoke to you, then you'd have very good grounds for such an appeal too.
Parliamentary sovereignty means that there's no appeal process here. The person who has written they made their mind up he was guilty before even speaking to him is judge, jury and executioner with nobody to appeal to.
Having one person deeming you're guilty before they even talk to you, having a closed mind throughout, then no possibility of appeal isn't justice. If it was any other walk of life the courts would be available for appeals but they're not here.
That's the system they chose. They can change it if they don't like it, but new rules should not be applied on cases already working their way through the system - all sides will have known the process (or had it explained to them) that was to be followed, it is unfair to all parties to suddenly change that process, whether it added or substracted steps and whichever side it 'benefited'.
You don't improve a flawed process by using a flawed process. Take the Patterson route and every time an MP is unhappy and have enough mates and they can try to adjust the process, pulling the rug out from everyone who has been involved in it up to that point.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour; and he gets another £12k from the food company involved) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I think they want to complain about the lack.of correct procedure.. not use procedure.. a guilty verdict before the evidence has been.presented is not correct procedure,....
Read the report. It's not true that a 'guilty verdict was reached before the evidence was presented'. I know it's really boring to look at actual evidence. But read the report.....
The report isn't flawed because the report says it isn't flawed, so there's no need to have an appeal system.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Allowing someone to intervene and get the rules changed when they don't like the outcome to avoid punishment, because they have powerful mates, when that was not the process it was being conducted under, looks plenty shady to me. I don't think most people have the option of getting their mates to pause a process, 'review' the rules, and they hope invent a new one to apply retrospectively. Problems of process can be reviewed later, or they should have put in a different process for appealing before they started.
What you suggest of his actions is no fairer than applying a retrospective punishment when it comes to fairness in my book, and if that's a principle of justice I'm a monkey's uncle.
In almost every walk of life if there's an unfair process, then you'd be able to appeal that either internally or to a tribunal or a court. If you have the person who undertook the review finding you 'guilty' putting in writing that they'd made up their mind you're guilty before they even spoke to you, then you'd have very good grounds for such an appeal too.
Parliamentary sovereignty means that there's no appeal process here. The person who has written they made their mind up he was guilty before even speaking to him is judge, jury and executioner with nobody to appeal to.
Having one person deeming you're guilty before they even talk to you, having a closed mind throughout, then no possibility of appeal isn't justice. If it was any other walk of life the courts would be available for appeals but they're not here.
That's the system they chose. They can change it if they don't like it, but new rules should not be applied on cases already working their way through the system - all sides will have known the process (or had it explained to them) that was to be followed, it is unfair to all parties to suddenly change that process, whether it added or substracted steps and whichever side it 'benefited'.
You don't improve a flawed process by using a flawed process.
If there's been a blatant miscarriage of justice then creating an appeal procedure ad hoc is entirely reasonable.
Its not unfair to allow appeals retrospectively, people have a right to defend themselves. It is unfair to do punishments retrospectively. Benefit of the doubt there goes with the accused.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
I had an open mind. Then I read the report.
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
Let's face it: Paterson is only getting a pass from certain elements because he was a Brexit big cheese. If these accusations were being made against, say, Dominic Grieve then the current Tory Party and its supporters would be dancing on his grave already.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
It would be possible to not discount every point he makes, or indeed every point someone makes about an investigative process being flawed - we know they are not always done properly - without thinking that the way he and his backers are seeking to alter processes part way through, is a proportionate or reasonable approach.
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
If a man [or woman] has been unfairly 'convicted' by someone who was prejudiced and has said in writing that they'd made their mind up before even speaking to them . . . then do you think that person deserves the right to appeal that judgment or not?
In any other walk of life there's an appeal process. Why not here?
The report of the (crossparty) Committee on Standards and Privileges effectively was an appeal. Read it.
And they gave him opportunity to present detailed evidence before considering their decision.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
I had an open mind. Then I read the report.
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
Let's face it: Paterson is only getting a pass from certain elements because he was a Brexit big cheese. If these accusations were being made against, say, Dominic Grieve then the current Tory Party and its supporters would be dancing on his grave already.
Patterson's a nobody. Couldn't care less about him.
But I do care that justice is done and if there's been a miscarriage of justice and very serious allegations have been made, then there should be a system to appeal that. Any system that doesn't have an appeal is deeply flawed - especially if that system says there's no access to the courts.
I do find it amusing that so many people here are so closed-minded that they think its OK to have someone determine you're guilty through a flawed process then have absolutely no options to appeal it. Hope you're never in that position if so!
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
I had an open mind. Then I read the report.
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
Considering the report has been accused of saying things that are false, that the person who wrote the report was prejudiced and that there was a litany of other failures . . . if that's true then saying "but the report says that's not true" isn't a defence of the report.
Your logic is fallacious as Christians saying they believe in the Bible because they're Christian and they're Christian because of what the Bible tells them.
If the report is prejudiced, then the report you read is prejudiced. In any decent system there is always an appeal process if there are serious allegations, this is the first time this has come up that there's been a requirement for an appeal here and its a flaw in the system that no appeal process has been built into it.
You're defending the indefensible, but no surprise there. Even the four Tory MPs on the Committee accepted the report in full and found him 'guilty'. I guess they're as biased as me? This is what these Tory MPs signed up to:
The Committee found that Mr Paterson’s actions were an egregious case of paid advocacy, that he repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the House into disrepute.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
It would be possible to not discount every point he makes, or indeed every point someone makes about an investigative process being flawed - we know they are not always done properly - without thinking that the way he and his backers are seeking to alter processes part way through, is a proportionate or reasonable approach.
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
If a man [or woman] has been unfairly 'convicted' by someone who was prejudiced and has said in writing that they'd made their mind up before even speaking to them . . . then do you think that person deserves the right to appeal that judgment or not?
In any other walk of life there's an appeal process. Why not here?
You seem to be misconstruing my objection. I am not objecting to their being an appeal process, as such. I am objecting to the idea you bolt on an appeal process where one did not exist under the currently valid process.
As it stands the process does not have one. It is unreasonable to pause to invent one for him. If the process should have one that can be an outcome they consider for future complaints, and indeed should have considered in the first place.
It is no more fair than if the case had gone his way and it was paused to change the rules for someone to be able to appeal. You cannot invent the procedure you wish was the case rather than the procedure that existed anymore than ask a jury to convict someone on what the prosecutor wishes what the law was rather than what it is.
The other thing about current UK case numbers (which I haven't seen remarked on anywhere, yet) is that they seem to be much higher as a proportion of populations in rural areas than in the cities. The contrast is quite striking:
I assume it's related to the fact that most of the positive cases relate to under 18s. This implies that cities have generally lower proportions of under 18s than rural areas, which is, as far as I can see, completely wrong. I think it's possible that (somehow) cities have fewer teenagers than rural areas on average, but the difference probably isn't big enough to explain the entire trend. It's pretty well established that cities have lower levels of vaccinations than average, so the only other explanation I can think of is that the cities have gone through the final wave faster and are now significantly and noticeably ahead of the game in terms of pacing the decline.
What else even is there? Children in cities are more likely to refuse testing? Inner city schools aren't reporting positive cases?
I'd assumed this was because Covid rates were lower in rural areas during the pre-vaccine waves of infection because it was easier for people to keep their distance and rates of transmission were consequently lower.
Now, in the post-vaccine phase where most NPIs have been dropped there is a bit of catching up to do to fill in the gaps of immunity. So there's a stronger, later exit wave in rural areas because they avoided more deaths before the vaccine.
Indeed. See also why London has been flatlining for yonks and is the most dovish region of the UK.
Relatedly, I just wandered around Hawley Wharf, the new quarter of Camden Market, which has softly opened about 2 years late
It is exquisite. They've done brilliant things with a very difficult site, strung along the canal, and around the railway. There's a new square, a new produce market, multi level shops, bars, restaurants, cinema. Taken together with what was already there, it makes Camden globally unique, there is nothing quite like it anywhere else on earth
But: where are the people? It is deserted. Central London is still eerily quiet in places. We need the people to come back. Enough
Good question, it might be recognition that the Dems have massively worked on there early voting campaign in the last 3 years, and expect that to overcome the disparity reported in these tweets?
Alternately, perhaps punters who bet on R in California are now scared of loosing more?
However I'm thinking of jumping in and putting a moderate amount of Youngkin,
And the poster is comparing results to 2017, when Northam won with 54% to 45%. So to overcome that baseline and the demographic trends in the urban centers, I am not sure a 12% boost in small rural districts is going to cut it.
Everyone is expecting it to be close, and I don't rule out Youngkin winning. But personally, I still think McAuliffe is the likelier winner.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
Could you try to be a bit less of a fish in a barrel waiting to be shot?
"SICK SLUR Vile moment racist Rangers fans chant ‘I’d rather be a P*** than a Tim’"
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
I had an open mind. Then I read the report.
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
Let's face it: Paterson is only getting a pass from certain elements because he was a Brexit big cheese. If these accusations were being made against, say, Dominic Grieve then the current Tory Party and its supporters would be dancing on his grave already.
Patterson's a nobody. Couldn't care less about him.
But I do care that justice is done and if there's been a miscarriage of justice and very serious allegations have been made, then there should be a system to appeal that. Any system that doesn't have an appeal is deeply flawed - especially if that system says there's no access to the courts.
I do find it amusing that so many people here are so closed-minded that they think its OK to have someone determine you're guilty through a flawed process then have absolutely no options to appeal it. Hope you're never in that position if so!
I care a great deal about justice, thanks. It does you no credit to claim a halo of saintliness on the matter as a deflection. I respect your position that you think the current process is a flawed one. I would hope you can likewise respect that people can legitimately and reasonably conclude either that is not flawed (or at least lawfully restricted, intentionally when they set it up), or, as in my case, that even where there are flaws (and serious allegations is not enough, anyone can make serious but not credible allegations, or allegations which have been considered and addressed), that some 'solutions' are similarly flawed, and the flaws have to be addressed in another way.
I would have thought you could accept the latter, since despite your protestations it is same as the arguments rebutted in the Roberts case albeit in respect of punishment not appeal - there were flaws of process that were widely acknowledged, but some of us felt certain solutions to those flaws were not appropriate.
Even when there are flaws not every option to address them can be done. Or should be done. You're focusing on one principle in isolation and acting as though there are no issues with restrospective process changes.
The other thing about current UK case numbers (which I haven't seen remarked on anywhere, yet) is that they seem to be much higher as a proportion of populations in rural areas than in the cities. The contrast is quite striking:
I assume it's related to the fact that most of the positive cases relate to under 18s. This implies that cities have generally lower proportions of under 18s than rural areas, which is, as far as I can see, completely wrong. I think it's possible that (somehow) cities have fewer teenagers than rural areas on average, but the difference probably isn't big enough to explain the entire trend. It's pretty well established that cities have lower levels of vaccinations than average, so the only other explanation I can think of is that the cities have gone through the final wave faster and are now significantly and noticeably ahead of the game in terms of pacing the decline.
What else even is there? Children in cities are more likely to refuse testing? Inner city schools aren't reporting positive cases?
I'd assumed this was because Covid rates were lower in rural areas during the pre-vaccine waves of infection because it was easier for people to keep their distance and rates of transmission were consequently lower.
Now, in the post-vaccine phase where most NPIs have been dropped there is a bit of catching up to do to fill in the gaps of immunity. So there's a stronger, later exit wave in rural areas because they avoided more deaths before the vaccine.
Indeed. See also why London has been flatlining for yonks and is the most dovish region of the UK.
Relatedly, I just wandered around Hawley Wharf, the new quarter of Camden Market, which has softly opened about 2 years late
It is exquisite. They've done brilliant things with a very difficult site, strung along the canal, and around the railway. There's a new square, a new produce market, multi level shops, bars, restaurants, cinema. Taken together with what was already there, it makes Camden globally unique, there is nothing quite like it anywhere else on earth
But: where are the people? It is deserted. Central London is still eerily quiet in places. We need the people to come back. Enough
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
Interesting you post this (why now out of interest).
It is absolutely the case and there have been several books on the subject already - Losing Small Wars/Ledwidge, Punching Below our Weight/Ledwidge, The Good War/Fairweather, A War of Choice/Fairweather, High Command/Christopher Elliott, A Million Bullets/Fergusson.
The interesting timing is apropos the discussion of the NHS whereby the gross failings of the institution shouldn't be mixed up with the dedication and performance of the individuals.
The British army seem to be pretty good at making some really bad tactical decisions. Much of the time they are either lucky or skilful enough to get themselves out of it but too often they are not.
During lockdown I watched a series of talks and discussions by military men hosted by the National Army Museum. One of these was between General Sir Michael Rose (Command, 22 SAS) and Major General Julian Thompson (Command, as a Brigadier, 3 Commando Brigade) on the Falklands land campaign and what went wrong. It is really scary understanding how many complete clusters there were during that campaign far beyond those that cost lives. Of course the old adage of no plan surviving first contact with the enemy has to be borne in mind but they were pretty scathing about some of the decisions being made at Northwood 8,000 miles away.
Any chance of a link, or was it a private affair?
I think it was a members only but I will see if I can track it down. There are a whole series of them on a huge range of different topics and for some reason it didn't cost me anything but I fail to remember how. Again I will find that out and let you know.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
Could you try to be a bit less of a fish in a barrel waiting to be shot?
"SICK SLUR Vile moment racist Rangers fans chant ‘I’d rather be a P*** than a Tim’"
The other thing about current UK case numbers (which I haven't seen remarked on anywhere, yet) is that they seem to be much higher as a proportion of populations in rural areas than in the cities. The contrast is quite striking:
I assume it's related to the fact that most of the positive cases relate to under 18s. This implies that cities have generally lower proportions of under 18s than rural areas, which is, as far as I can see, completely wrong. I think it's possible that (somehow) cities have fewer teenagers than rural areas on average, but the difference probably isn't big enough to explain the entire trend. It's pretty well established that cities have lower levels of vaccinations than average, so the only other explanation I can think of is that the cities have gone through the final wave faster and are now significantly and noticeably ahead of the game in terms of pacing the decline.
What else even is there? Children in cities are more likely to refuse testing? Inner city schools aren't reporting positive cases?
I'd assumed this was because Covid rates were lower in rural areas during the pre-vaccine waves of infection because it was easier for people to keep their distance and rates of transmission were consequently lower.
Now, in the post-vaccine phase where most NPIs have been dropped there is a bit of catching up to do to fill in the gaps of immunity. So there's a stronger, later exit wave in rural areas because they avoided more deaths before the vaccine.
Indeed. See also why London has been flatlining for yonks and is the most dovish region of the UK.
Relatedly, I just wandered around Hawley Wharf, the new quarter of Camden Market, which has softly opened about 2 years late
It is exquisite. They've done brilliant things with a very difficult site, strung along the canal, and around the railway. There's a new square, a new produce market, multi level shops, bars, restaurants, cinema. Taken together with what was already there, it makes Camden globally unique, there is nothing quite like it anywhere else on earth
But: where are the people? It is deserted. Central London is still eerily quiet in places. We need the people to come back. Enough
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Allowing someone to intervene and get the rules changed when they don't like the outcome to avoid punishment, because they have powerful mates, when that was not the process it was being conducted under, looks plenty shady to me. I don't think most people have the option of getting their mates to pause a process, 'review' the rules, and they hope invent a new one to apply retrospectively. Problems of process can be reviewed later, or they should have put in a different process for appealing before they started.
What you suggest of his actions is no fairer than applying a retrospective punishment when it comes to fairness in my book, and if that's a principle of justice I'm a monkey's uncle.
In almost every walk of life if there's an unfair process, then you'd be able to appeal that either internally or to a tribunal or a court. If you have the person who undertook the review finding you 'guilty' putting in writing that they'd made up their mind you're guilty before they even spoke to you, then you'd have very good grounds for such an appeal too.
Parliamentary sovereignty means that there's no appeal process here. The person who has written they made their mind up he was guilty before even speaking to him is judge, jury and executioner with nobody to appeal to.
Having one person deeming you're guilty before they even talk to you, having a closed mind throughout, then no possibility of appeal isn't justice. If it was any other walk of life the courts would be available for appeals but they're not here.
That's the system they chose. They can change it if they don't like it, but new rules should not be applied on cases already working their way through the system - all sides will have known the process (or had it explained to them) that was to be followed, it is unfair to all parties to suddenly change that process, whether it added or substracted steps and whichever side it 'benefited'.
You don't improve a flawed process by using a flawed process.
If there's been a blatant miscarriage of justice then creating an appeal procedure ad hoc is entirely reasonable.
Its not unfair to allow appeals retrospectively, people have a right to defend themselves. It is unfair to do punishments retrospectively. Benefit of the doubt there goes with the accused.
Your description makes no sense, because he has defended himself repeatedly. They just don't have yet another step to do so. You are also leaning more and more to presuming a miscarriage of justice and indeed rejected the idea the report could possibly refute any allegation - which if you think about it means it would be impossible for a report to address such, since the mere presence of an objection seems sufficient. In which case every case should automatically be appealed.
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
It would be possible to not discount every point he makes, or indeed every point someone makes about an investigative process being flawed - we know they are not always done properly - without thinking that the way he and his backers are seeking to alter processes part way through, is a proportionate or reasonable approach.
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
If a man [or woman] has been unfairly 'convicted' by someone who was prejudiced and has said in writing that they'd made their mind up before even speaking to them . . . then do you think that person deserves the right to appeal that judgment or not?
In any other walk of life there's an appeal process. Why not here?
Well I don't know about the rest of it but the statement that 'In any other walk of life there is an appeals process' is certainly not true as I am involved in the 2nd attempt at a 10 minute bill to get just that. That is after a 9 year campaign and I am aware of others where injustice fall through the cracks. We have cross party support for the bill and the support of the ombudsman to give him the powers.
I am afraid there are lots of instances where there is no appeals process sadly.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
Could you try to be a bit less of a fish in a barrel waiting to be shot?
"SICK SLUR Vile moment racist Rangers fans chant ‘I’d rather be a P*** than a Tim’"
Last word for me on Patterson is that, as is often common with complaints, what are issues of process are getting overblown into grand issues of principle which do not seem to be justified as much as his personal grandiose claims suggest. I am not convinced that issues of the process, which they all knew existed and yet I am to believe no one foresaw the possibility of until just now, are so significant as to warrant a pause and thus an unfair outcome on those such as the Committee who have done their duty following the process they were told to follow. Particularly when the same tactic could be used by any MP with whatever new process is developed, by claiming that process has flaws so must be paused. It would never end.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
Could you try to be a bit less of a fish in a barrel waiting to be shot?
"SICK SLUR Vile moment racist Rangers fans chant ‘I’d rather be a P*** than a Tim’"
NEW: Am told an amendment is set to be tabled to the Owen Paterson motion tomorrow by his supporters which would pause his case pending a review of the standards system led by John Whittingdale.
Government whips currently canvassing MPs on whether they would consider backing it
The review would have 8 backbenchers, 4 of them Tory. Whittingdale, as the chair and 9th member, would have the casting vote.
So a Conservative majority to change the standards system in response to findings against Paterson, one of their own
Remember a few weeks ago, when they said they couldn’t possibly retrospectively change the rules to make an MP found to have sexually harassed an employee face a recall?
Retrospective punishment is a different matter to retrospectively putting in an appeal system.
It's different, but of the same substance, so the comparison is valid. It's changing the rules of a system part way through as a means of evasion. It's bog standard delay and obfuscation pretending process is always the issue when the motivation of complaint is very obviously the outcome, whatever the process.
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
Its not the same substance.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
Owen Paterson is as guilty as fuck. He shouldn't just be suspended for 30 days - the Tory Party should kick him out. He's blatantly been lobbying for Randox (a reminder - they pay him £100k a year for 16 hours work a month - £520 an hour) when he's meant to be working for his constituents. His greed is revolting. His complaints about the process are all dealt with, and debunked, in the Standards Committee Report, which I've read. Though it's quite long and I understand why people can't be bothered. However, anybody who read it would think: he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Here it is:
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I'm sure you had an open mind.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
It would be possible to not discount every point he makes, or indeed every point someone makes about an investigative process being flawed - we know they are not always done properly - without thinking that the way he and his backers are seeking to alter processes part way through, is a proportionate or reasonable approach.
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
If a man [or woman] has been unfairly 'convicted' by someone who was prejudiced and has said in writing that they'd made their mind up before even speaking to them . . . then do you think that person deserves the right to appeal that judgment or not?
In any other walk of life there's an appeal process. Why not here?
You seem to be misconstruing my objection. I am not objecting to their being an appeal process, as such. I am objecting to the idea you bolt on an appeal process where one did not exist under the currently valid process.
As it stands the process does not have one. It is unreasonable to pause to invent one for him. If the process should have one that can be an outcome they consider for future complaints, and indeed should have considered in the first place.
It is no more fair than if the case had gone his way and it was paused to change the rules for someone to be able to appeal. You cannot invent the procedure you wish was the case rather than the procedure that existed anymore than ask a jury to convict someone on what the prosecutor wishes what the law was rather than what it is.
You don't invent or have appeals if someone's been acquitted, that's double jeopardy.
If someone's been subject to a prejudiced system then having an appeal is better than not having one.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
And as a frequent visitor to Thailand I’ve never objected to being called a ‘Farang’.
During the recent celebrations of Unionist and Protestant culture in Glasgow, one particularly stupid young woman was filmed bellowing out ‘I’d rather be a P*ki than a Tim’. I suppose some of them are thick enough to use that to try and make the case that the Orange Order isn’t racist.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
Could you try to be a bit less of a fish in a barrel waiting to be shot?
"SICK SLUR Vile moment racist Rangers fans chant ‘I’d rather be a P*** than a Tim’"
I there I was thinking you were getting personal. Had no idea Celtic fans were called Tims. LOL
It's a bit of a minefield but Celtic supporters are happy to call themselves Tims, though maybe not in a context like that video of course. Rangers supporters are less keen on being called Huns..
Ian Leslie @mrianleslie A few scattered thoughts on "Blair & Brown" now it's over. I really enjoyed it. It didn't tell a new story, but the story it told was deepened by the distance we've all covered since then. And they really brought the best out of the interviewees. 1/n
Yet another mistake by Maguire. He’s having an absolute mare. Again.
To think he cost more than Virgil Van Dijk.
I'm a bit puzzled about OGS substituting Ronaldo while they're losing and he's probably the best bet at an equaliser.
Is he trying to get sacked now?
What match are you watching?
Soccer Saturday (or whatever its called on a Tuesday). Paul Merson said he'd been substituted and he didn't understand why, so I assumed he had been, now Merson is all excited saying he scored.
I haven't commented on the Yorkshire cricket racism until now because I wanted to read what the report said. I've had a chance to do it and it's absolutely awful. The idea that calling any Asian person a "paki" is just friendly banter is ridiculous. It's racism plain and simple, if it was a black person being called the n-word it would be an open and shut case of racism, this should be too. I've been called that on a number of occasions and every single time it reminds me that we haven't defeated the casual racism that still exists in the UK. We've done well to eliminate it from hiring practices and other officialdom but now we need to extinguish racism from casual life.
Being called a "paki" is insulting enough, then to be told that this is just friendly banter and to stop being so sensitive is completely out of order. The whole of Yorkshire CC should hang their heads in shame.
Did you read this bit?
Indeed, the panel accuses Rafiq of using "offensive, racially derogatory comments" when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as "Zimbo from Zimbabwe". The panel viewed this as "a racist, derogatory term" and recommends that, were Rafiq still a Yorkshire player, he should face disciplinary action for using it.
As is if Zimbo, Aussie, or Kiwi is the same as using Paki.
Tone and intent are key here. Just as they are if I call an acquaintance a bastard. In my travels in Africa I have never heard Zimbo used as a term, though I have heard white Zimbabweans referred to as Rhodies, generally by other Rhodies. Mzungu* is quite common in Eastern and Southern Africa too, but I have never felt insulted by being called it. Generally I suppose because most Africans are studiously, even rather formally polite in general conversation.
*white person
In what tone or intent does the word Paki lose all 70+ years of the word's racist undertones and associations?
I think historical context, and perhaps more importantly, power relationships are key as to whether something is acceptable or not. On the face of it, why would Paki in relation to an actual Pakistani, be worse than Brit? But that is to ignore both the history and the power relationship.
In comedy in the US there is this concept of never hitting down, only hitting up. So to make jokes about the idiocies of Brits is ok, but to do the same of Blacks or Jews is not. Of course, Blacks and Jews can makes jokes about themselves that would be racist for a white person to make. Similarly, women can make jokes about men that would not be acceptable the other way around.
Personally, I find this formulaic approach to comedy repulsive, but I accept the underlying truth of the importance of that power relationship issue.
I would not ever take offence at being called a whingeing pommie bastard, but then I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence at Paki. So I avoid the term.
There was, some years ago, a football game, in Turkey, between an English and a Turkish club where the English fans were singing that they’d ‘rather be a Paki than a Turk’.
The other thing about current UK case numbers (which I haven't seen remarked on anywhere, yet) is that they seem to be much higher as a proportion of populations in rural areas than in the cities. The contrast is quite striking:
I assume it's related to the fact that most of the positive cases relate to under 18s. This implies that cities have generally lower proportions of under 18s than rural areas, which is, as far as I can see, completely wrong. I think it's possible that (somehow) cities have fewer teenagers than rural areas on average, but the difference probably isn't big enough to explain the entire trend. It's pretty well established that cities have lower levels of vaccinations than average, so the only other explanation I can think of is that the cities have gone through the final wave faster and are now significantly and noticeably ahead of the game in terms of pacing the decline.
What else even is there? Children in cities are more likely to refuse testing? Inner city schools aren't reporting positive cases?
I'd assumed this was because Covid rates were lower in rural areas during the pre-vaccine waves of infection because it was easier for people to keep their distance and rates of transmission were consequently lower.
Now, in the post-vaccine phase where most NPIs have been dropped there is a bit of catching up to do to fill in the gaps of immunity. So there's a stronger, later exit wave in rural areas because they avoided more deaths before the vaccine.
Indeed. See also why London has been flatlining for yonks and is the most dovish region of the UK.
Relatedly, I just wandered around Hawley Wharf, the new quarter of Camden Market, which has softly opened about 2 years late
It is exquisite. They've done brilliant things with a very difficult site, strung along the canal, and around the railway. There's a new square, a new produce market, multi level shops, bars, restaurants, cinema. Taken together with what was already there, it makes Camden globally unique, there is nothing quite like it anywhere else on earth
But: where are the people? It is deserted. Central London is still eerily quiet in places. We need the people to come back. Enough
Comments
This is not a surprise - how often do we see in politics campaigners and 'bitter' complainers seeking delays and 'reviews' which are clearly wishing for a specific outcome to their satisfaction rather than any genuine review? The raising of a few genuine points within such never disguises the intent.
As for Labour opposing AUKUS, that would have been a courageous position to take.
Possibly Zimbo might.
Performance of the day - VERRY ELLEEGANT in the Melbourne Cup.
With the Health Secretary taking a perhaps more cautious line than some on here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-59137280
It all comes back to my favourite word - perception. Now, I got pilloried by some on here last week for making the hardly contentious suggestion politics was largely about perception and managing perception.
The number of positive cases is on the way down and the "collapse" predicted by some may still transpire in the coming days - 293 deaths, for all it is a lagging indicator, is also a nagging indicator reminding us the true cost of this virus isn't measured by GDP numbers but by families who have lost loved ones.
I'm optimistic - the vaccination numbers are all the optimism one should need - as to where we go after the third vaccination, will we need a fourth next spring or will we get longer and better protection as vaccines evolve?
Perception - on the environment, as much as any other issue, the perceptions of governments and the governed are what matters. An end to deforestation by 2030 would be a huge step and the fact Brazil has signed up is at least encouraging but how will we enforce or confirm it and what damage will be done between now and then?
The Global Methane Pledge again reads as a huge step forward and the perception among many will be that Governments are serious and getting serious about climate change and the tone of all the speeches in the past 48 hours has emphasised that commitment.
And yet - we were here before with Kyoto and Paris. If all the talk is just hot air, COP26 will simply be an exercise in public delusion. Where is the sanction for those who don't live up to their commitments - those who lead in 2030 can't be coming back to another city after another decade of inaction and proclaiming "something must be done".
The impacts of climate change will be worst for the poorest but all parts will feel the effects whether actual or vicariously.
Its a principle of justice that you don't do retrospective punishments. Retrospectively dealing with issues like appeals if there's been a miscarriage of justice is an entirely different matter.
A bookmaker who put up odds on QAnon theories being true. So long as you could get enough QAnon supporters to place bets, you'd be "quids in" taking the other side.
Hmmmm... can't think of any recent examples.
What you suggest of his actions is no fairer than applying a retrospective punishment in my book, and if that's a principle of justice being played out I'm a monkey's uncle.
Second, your bizarre posts about ‘perception’ were in reply to people posting - er - actual covid numbers, hence why you were pulled up on it.
See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-kennedy-jr-measles-vaccines-226798/
I suppose lots of them have stimulus checks, at least. Unless they've already spent them on Bitcoin...
"Former Kent and England bowler Alan Igglesden dies aged 57
PCA pays tribute to ‘absolute inspiration’ and ‘cricketing giant’
Igglesden played three times for England between 1989 and 1994"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/01/cricket-kent-england-bowler-alan-igglesden-dies-aged-57
Meanwhile Mike Smithson is Ed Sheeran.
I keep on banging on about cultural cognition on this site, but I guess no one is listening. As Mr Smithson Jr so aptly summarized it "I will believe what I think people who share my values believe" Check out Kahan's work on cultural cognition, or Jonah Berger's work on Zone of Acceptance (similar to the Overton window)
Parliamentary sovereignty means that there's no appeal process here. The person who has written they made their mind up he was guilty before even speaking to him is judge, jury and executioner with nobody to appeal to.
Having one person deeming you're guilty before they even talk to you, having a closed mind throughout, then no possibility of appeal isn't justice. If it was any other walk of life the courts would be available for appeals but they're not here.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/158246/committee-on-standards-publish-report-on-the-conduct-of-rt-hon-owen-paterson-mp/
If the Tory Party use procedures to try to change the decision of the Committee, they really do belong in the sewer.
I've not read the report, but I did read his letter detailing his concerns and they seemed very serious and justified.
If you've already read it, on what pages of the report does it deal with the fact that the person who made the report said in writing that they had pre-determined he was guilty before even speaking to him? A flagrant violation of ethical standards for anyone doing investigations.
And on what page of the report does it deal with his allegations that the report says he never spoke to people that he should have done - when he says not only did he speak to them, but the meetings were minuted, and that after he said that he did speak to him and provided them as witnesses they were never even spoken to, in order to confirm that he had or not?
Not my problem if you can't be arsed to read it yourself, but are still willing to comment on it. But I've certainly got better things to do than to do your homework for you.
Why is Youngkin not massively odds on???
That is why there is crossover with the Roberts case, because while he deserved punishment, cockups prevented it and addressing that cockup in the way some wanted had larger implications. There are different, but likewise, implications to a man in his position seeking to use his influence to change the rules and process by which he was to be judged.
Your logic is fallacious as Christians saying they believe in the Bible because they're Christian and they're Christian because of what the Bible tells them.
If the report is prejudiced, then the report you read is prejudiced. In any decent system there is always an appeal process if there are serious allegations, this is the first time this has come up that there's been a requirement for an appeal here and its a flaw in the system that no appeal process has been built into it.
Perception is not about the actual virus numbers - it's about how the numbers are presented and the conclusions the public are invited to draw from that presentation.
Try thinking about that before throwing around words like "bizarre".
In any other walk of life there's an appeal process. Why not here?
You don't improve a flawed process by using a flawed process. Take the Patterson route and every time an MP is unhappy and have enough mates and they can try to adjust the process, pulling the rug out from everyone who has been involved in it up to that point.
Great principle of justice you've got there.
It needs more than a few Rockinghams to move the needle much. Need to see a much broader pattern.
(PRO-tip for people waiting for a reply: It didn't happen)
Its not unfair to allow appeals retrospectively, people have a right to defend themselves. It is unfair to do punishments retrospectively. Benefit of the doubt there goes with the accused.
And they gave him opportunity to present detailed evidence before considering their decision.
But I do care that justice is done and if there's been a miscarriage of justice and very serious allegations have been made, then there should be a system to appeal that. Any system that doesn't have an appeal is deeply flawed - especially if that system says there's no access to the courts.
I do find it amusing that so many people here are so closed-minded that they think its OK to have someone determine you're guilty through a flawed process then have absolutely no options to appeal it. Hope you're never in that position if so!
The Committee found that Mr Paterson’s actions were an egregious case of paid advocacy, that he repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the House into disrepute.
Come back to me when/if you've read the report.
As it stands the process does not have one. It is unreasonable to pause to invent one for him. If the process should have one that can be an outcome they consider for future complaints, and indeed should have considered in the first place.
It is no more fair than if the case had gone his way and it was paused to change the rules for someone to be able to appeal. You cannot invent the procedure you wish was the case rather than the procedure that existed anymore than ask a jury to convict someone on what the prosecutor wishes what the law was rather than what it is.
It is exquisite. They've done brilliant things with a very difficult site, strung along the canal, and around the railway. There's a new square, a new produce market, multi level shops, bars, restaurants, cinema. Taken together with what was already there, it makes Camden globally unique, there is nothing quite like it anywhere else on earth
But: where are the people? It is deserted. Central London is still eerily quiet in places. We need the people to come back. Enough
https://hawleywharfcamden.com/
Alternately, perhaps punters who bet on R in California are now scared of loosing more?
However I'm thinking of jumping in and putting a moderate amount of Youngkin,
And the poster is comparing results to 2017, when Northam won with 54% to 45%. So to overcome that baseline and the demographic trends in the urban centers, I am not sure a 12% boost in small rural districts is going to cut it.
Everyone is expecting it to be close, and I don't rule out Youngkin winning. But personally, I still think McAuliffe is the likelier winner.
"SICK SLUR Vile moment racist Rangers fans chant ‘I’d rather be a P*** than a Tim’"
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7124614/vile-racist-rangers-fan-chant/
I would have thought you could accept the latter, since despite your protestations it is same as the arguments rebutted in the Roberts case albeit in respect of punishment not appeal - there were flaws of process that were widely acknowledged, but some of us felt certain solutions to those flaws were not appropriate.
Even when there are flaws not every option to address them can be done. Or should be done. You're focusing on one principle in isolation and acting as though there are no issues with restrospective process changes.
"A C.D.C. panel recommends Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for children ages 5 to 11"
as
"ACDC panel recommends Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for children ages 5 to 11"
Was wondering why a rockband was making such recommendations.
I am afraid there are lots of instances where there is no appeals process sadly.
Scotland really is a sectarian shithole isn't it?
If someone's been subject to a prejudiced system then having an appeal is better than not having one.
College 53
Non-College 47
Female 53
Male 47
White 73
Black 17
Latino 5
I'll hopefully get the age category after the ad break
18-29 9pc
30-44 22pc
45-64 43pc
65+ 27pc
Edit: Virginia
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2017-election/va/
Exit polls from previous elections. Don't have time to find validated voter files
@mrianleslie
A few scattered thoughts on "Blair & Brown" now it's over. I really enjoyed it. It didn't tell a new story, but the story it told was deepened by the distance we've all covered since then. And they really brought the best out of the interviewees. 1/n
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1455476638012088320
Is he trying to get sacked now?
Mind you I would swap him for Vesteguard!