So, what sort of dead cat do we think Johnson's team are likely digging up ready to chuck on the table?
Prince Andrew has done the job for them, dutiful Royal that he is.
Nah, not enough; Prince Andrew being charged with a criminal offence might be.
I'm wishing:
- Very good health for HMQ for the coming period. - Russia to keep out of Ukraine. - No unexpected asteroids impacting. - The absence of a massive solar storm would be good too...
So in other circumstances you'd be ok with an unexpected asteroid impacting etc?
The Prince Andrew story does seem to be a massive deceased feline. It seems to have become the main story on Sky today.
The problem is that this story isn't going away and the Gray report seems like it will be terminal. I don't see any way that won't be critical and that will make it top news story again and trigger the letters.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
People are idiotic in real life when it comes to forgetting to put the mask back; it;s not a familiar situation. But of course you'd rather sack her for talking to an elderly person than Mr Johnson for repeated whoopee parties.
This is not as rigorous as I've come to expect from you. Sorry to go meta on the discussion but you are justifying her actions in terms that people have been criticising Boris for all day. Of course people are idiotic in real life when it comes to forgetting to put the mask back on but because she is First Minister of Scotland who made the flipping law she does not get to make that excuse. Same with Boris.
Plus your argument has gone from "she was talking to a deaf person so it's fine" to "she forgot to put the mask back on so it's fine".
Talking ot a deaf or hoh person was always fine (social distancing assumed). MY impression was that wwas what you were criticising her for. Then I realised you were - correctly - complainijng about her not putting it up again, easily done as that is.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Johnson has clearly followed the Sturgeon approach of waiting for a deeply boring and non-committal report, with limited scope, to say absolutely nothing.
Yes, I had a simaliar thought today - Seems to me that Bozo was copying Nippy's playbook a bit today.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She made and broke the rules. It's yoiur 'wilful' I don't agree with. Or comparison with Mr Johnson's attitude to the rules.
Of course you don't agree. Because it's that irregular verb. Despite your somewhat bizarre diversion into the but she was speaking to a deaf person ploy.
The point is both Boris & Nicola made and broke the rules. You think one is entirely justified and the other grounds for resignation. I am none too sure.
They both appear to have lied, though I would say Jimmy Krankie's lie was not quite in the same league as Mr. Johnson's.
I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Nichola Sturgeon, but she'd have to be going some to be in the same league as Johnson. Even Jeffrey Archer must be a bit taken aback by today's events.
Ah yes, Jeffrey. I had quite forgotten about him. There is a lot of similarities between Jeffrey and The Clown.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Oh so it wasn't the talking to the deaf person it was because she then went on not to wear it. So no excuse in other words apart from "I forgot".
Quite; talks to X, X can't understand, lowers the mask, they have their chat, and then she goes off forgetting to put the mask up again.
As per my edit: if I am doing 70mph on a motorway and then turn in to Little Dribblington High Street (speed limit 30mph) but keep going at 70mph can I say I forgot to slow down.
Are you bored and giving this contrarianism lark a whirl just for the sake of it?
Yes you can. The bench will disbelieve you and have £500 off you and give you points or an Awareness Course, and life goes on.
OR you can tell the court you were out of the country at the time and your blind Latvian au pair, who has now emigrated to Pitcairn Island, was behind the wheel. Should this turn out to be not true, the penalties go beyond fines and points.
It's not contrarian at all I am the orthodox one here.
Nicola Sturgeon "forgot" to put her mask back on thereby breaking the law that she had made. Boris seems to have partied in his workplace which we shall soon find out it seems broke the law that he had made.
You can't accept a heartfelt apology for one and not the other. Now, is it heartfelt? No idea for either of them tbh. I suspect not for both.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She made and broke the rules. It's yoiur 'wilful' I don't agree with. Or comparison with Mr Johnson's attitude to the rules.
Of course you don't agree. Because it's that irregular verb. Despite your somewhat bizarre diversion into the but she was speaking to a deaf person ploy.
The point is both Boris & Nicola made and broke the rules. You think one is entirely justified and the other grounds for resignation. I am none too sure.
They both appear to have lied, though I would say Jimmy Krankie's lie was not quite in the same league as Mr. Johnson's.
I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Nichola Sturgeon, but she'd have to be going some to be in the same league as Johnson. Even Jeffrey Archer must be a bit taken aback by today's events.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She made and broke the rules. It's yoiur 'wilful' I don't agree with. Or comparison with Mr Johnson's attitude to the rules.
Of course you don't agree. Because it's that irregular verb. Despite your somewhat bizarre diversion into the but she was speaking to a deaf person ploy.
The point is both Boris & Nicola made and broke the rules. You think one is entirely justified and the other grounds for resignation. I am none too sure.
They both appear to have lied, though I would say Jimmy Krankie's lie was not quite in the same league as Mr. Johnson's.
I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Nichola Sturgeon, but she'd have to be going some to be in the same league as Johnson. Even Jeffrey Archer must be a bit taken aback by today's events.
Are you saying that in the PM's version of events, you detect some minor inArcuricies?
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Destroying works of art, even bad ones is pretty close to burning books, in my book.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
People are idiotic in real life when it comes to forgetting to put the mask back; it;s not a familiar situation. But of course you'd rather sack her for talking to an elderly person than Mr Johnson for repeated whoopee parties.
This is not as rigorous as I've come to expect from you. Sorry to go meta on the discussion but you are justifying her actions in terms that people have been criticising Boris for all day. Of course people are idiotic in real life when it comes to forgetting to put the mask back on but because she is First Minister of Scotland who made the flipping law she does not get to make that excuse. Same with Boris.
Plus your argument has gone from "she was talking to a deaf person so it's fine" to "she forgot to put the mask back on so it's fine".
Talking ot a deaf or hoh person was always fine (social distancing assumed). MY impression was that wwas what you were criticising her for. Then I realised you were - correctly - complainijng about her not putting it up again, easily done as that is.
I was certainly not criticising her for something that is a valid exemption. After my taxi driver experience I googled "Nicola Sturgeon Covid rules break" and found that she had broken the rules by her own admission and had issued a "heartfelt" apology.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
One thing which appears to have changed is that Giuffre is now saying that Andrew knew she was trafficked. That appears to be a new allegation. Is there some new evidence to support this that was not available before?
Pass but I suspect it was something innocent such as Prince Andrew asking where are you from - Florida without Prince Andrew or Virginia (at the time) understanding the consequences of the statement.
This bit is interesting for @DavidL (page 21 paragraph 55)
At trial, should the case proceed to trial, he perhaps could have an opportunity to prove that Prince Andrew could have been Sued successfully in Florida on the §2255 claim, in which case these claims might be pertinent to an assertion of the release defense in this case.
So the way to bring the Florida trial judgment back into play is to admit enough guilt that the Florida case can be investigated more thoroughly within the trial.
You would need to be incredibly stupid to do that.
Knowing where someone is from does not show knowledge that someone has been trafficked. There is something a touch troubling about allegations being added on at such a late stage unless some new evidence has come to light. That may be the case of course but I have not seen it.
I would also like to understand why she was not chosen to give evidence at the Maxwell trial and why, if she does have all this evidence, the criminal authorities have chosen not to pursue this matter. Also is she pursuing claims against the others she had sex with? If not, why not?
None of this is to defend Andrew. I don't know enough about the facts. But if there is credible evidence that someone was involved in rape and trafficking then the criminal courts are the right place for those allegations to be tested.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
It's entirely possible I'm both young AND a moron.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Destroying works of art, even bad ones is pretty close to burning books, in my book.
Colston's statue hasn't been destroyed, just put somewhere different.
So, what sort of dead cat do we think Johnson's team are likely digging up ready to chuck on the table?
Prince Andrew has done the job for them, dutiful Royal that he is.
Nah, not enough; Prince Andrew being charged with a criminal offence might be.
I'm wishing:
- Very good health for HMQ for the coming period. - Russia to keep out of Ukraine. - No unexpected asteroids impacting. - The absence of a massive solar storm would be good too...
Triggering A16 looks like the only short term option then.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
Takes longer to read that than it takes to invade Poland.
“ Liz Truss, also in the running for PM, has also not tweeted or voiced her support but was spotted giving him a knee touch in the Commons.”
What is wrong with her? 🤷♀️
If she ain’t careful PBs “Jizz with Liz” meme is going to go Global Britain.
Jizz with Liz? Knee touching?
Careful. Porn, drugs, prostitution etc is Sean’s specialist area.
We had that earlier alongside a reference to Mummy porn and something called a Sybian which seems to be connected to this photo
I have to admit the post internet bachelor days of TSE seem far more "enlightening" than my pre internet bachelor days.
New day, same old misogyny on PB.
I don't see any particular misogyny in it. As I recall the latest discussion of it was from MoonRabbit, who unless I'm much very mistaken, is a lady ;.)
Misogyny. 🤔 I quoted straight off the sky news, she touched the PMs leg. Imagine it the other way round. For me There’s something about her behaviour which invites the “Jizz with Liz” meme. Which is what my email is clearly saying. Maybe it doesn’t exist with no Dishy on Rishy first. But just look at that picture above for example.
Is she too keen to be seen and known as sexy?
I have Randy thoughts all the time everyday, but if high profile in politics, I wouldn’t pose for attention like that, I’d prefer to Be seen and known talking and listening to people.
You can carry on calling this point of view misogyny if you want Aslan - interesting to see what you call as key evidence.
I have touched on this theme, ladies in politics before. Last weeks PMQs my opinion was a lady in a room of men in suits doesn’t have to make much effort to dress in a way that stands out. So my opinion is don’t. Don’t go down the route of using sex appeal to get noticed, stick to politics appeal.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
It's entirely possible I'm both young AND a moron.
Given your posts I would agree that that's a distinct possiblity now you mention it.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
A point of order. Labour and the three quid Tories elected JC.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Oh so it wasn't the talking to the deaf person it was because she then went on not to wear it. So no excuse in other words apart from "I forgot".
Quite; talks to X, X can't understand, lowers the mask, they have their chat, and then she goes off forgetting to put the mask up again.
As per my edit: if I am doing 70mph on a motorway and then turn in to Little Dribblington High Street (speed limit 30mph) but keep going at 70mph can I say I forgot to slow down.
Are you bored and giving this contrarianism lark a whirl just for the sake of it?
Yes you can. The bench will disbelieve you and have £500 off you and give you points or an Awareness Course, and life goes on.
OR you can tell the court you were out of the country at the time and your blind Latvian au pair, who has now emigrated to Pitcairn Island, was behind the wheel. Should this turn out to be not true, the penalties go beyond fines and points.
It's not contrarian at all I am the orthodox one here.
Nicola Sturgeon "forgot" to put her mask back on thereby breaking the law that she had made. Boris seems to have partied in his workplace which we shall soon find out it seems broke the law that he had made.
You can't accept a heartfelt apology for one and not the other. Now, is it heartfelt? No idea for either of them tbh. I suspect not for both.
One offence is self-indulgence, the other misplaced courtesy. And you Either tough it out OR apologise, you can't do the one then switch to the other.
Did the Scotch tories call for Sturgeon's resignation? As it is their job to do so where circumstances permit, what does their silence tell us?
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Destroying works of art, even bad ones is pretty close to burning books, in my book.
Colston's statue hasn't been destroyed, just put somewhere different.
They tried to destroy it. It was like a mob burning books. Bad art or bad books are records of the past. If we think it is OK for self appointed vigilantes to destroy them then we are on a slippery slope.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
It's entirely possible I'm both young AND a moron.
Given your posts I would agree that that's a distinct possiblity now you mention it.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
It's entirely possible I'm both young AND a moron.
"A tall, old, man may be a tall, old fool!" - Ashtavakra (of Hindu legend).
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
PB Tory is a description conferred by others, not something that can be embraced or renounced at will. Think champagne socialist or metropolitan liberal..
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
It's entirely possible I'm both young AND a moron.
Given your posts I would agree that that's a distinct possiblity now you mention it.
Sorry for this, but it has to be said that people indulging in abusive language that questions others intelligence are invariably indulging in psychological projection.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
PB Tory is a description conferred by others, not something that can be embraced or renounced at will. Think champagne socialist or metropolitan liberal..
Hey, some of us have been accused of being both a PB Tory and a part of the metropolitan liberal elite.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
Boris's viewpoint seems to always be what can I use to get out of this mess. The problem is that he is rapidly running out of road as his previous statements catch up with him leaving him fewer and fewer options that don't contradict what he's already said.
Surely we are beyond that point already?
“I am sorry for the party(/work event)” I attended in my own garden clearly contradicts with “I was angry and furious when I found out what my staff had been up to in my own garden”.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
PB Tory is a description conferred by others, not something that can be embraced or renounced at will. Think champagne socialist or metropolitan liberal..
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Is the question to ask.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
There are some of us who could go either way so probably don't belong in either category.
LOL if you haven't made your mind up by this point you're either very young (yet strangley able to vote in referendum) or a total moron.
Any future referendum will be... in the future. Why would it be strange that I can vote in it?
If you know a trick whereby I will become younger by then, please do share. I'll happily sacrifice my vote for Elixir of youth. Thanks in advance.
LOL - are you saying you''re a youngling? I had put you in the total moron category.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
It's entirely possible I'm both young AND a moron.
Given your posts I would agree that that's a distinct possiblity now you mention it.
Sorry for this, but it has to be said that people indulging in abusive language that questions others intelligence are invariably indulging in psychological projection.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Oh so it wasn't the talking to the deaf person it was because she then went on not to wear it. So no excuse in other words apart from "I forgot".
Quite; talks to X, X can't understand, lowers the mask, they have their chat, and then she goes off forgetting to put the mask up again.
As per my edit: if I am doing 70mph on a motorway and then turn in to Little Dribblington High Street (speed limit 30mph) but keep going at 70mph can I say I forgot to slow down.
Are you bored and giving this contrarianism lark a whirl just for the sake of it?
Yes you can. The bench will disbelieve you and have £500 off you and give you points or an Awareness Course, and life goes on.
OR you can tell the court you were out of the country at the time and your blind Latvian au pair, who has now emigrated to Pitcairn Island, was behind the wheel. Should this turn out to be not true, the penalties go beyond fines and points.
It's not contrarian at all I am the orthodox one here.
Nicola Sturgeon "forgot" to put her mask back on thereby breaking the law that she had made. Boris seems to have partied in his workplace which we shall soon find out it seems broke the law that he had made.
You can't accept a heartfelt apology for one and not the other. Now, is it heartfelt? No idea for either of them tbh. I suspect not for both.
One offence is self-indulgence, the other misplaced courtesy. And you Either tough it out OR apologise, you can't do the one then switch to the other.
Did the Scotch tories call for Sturgeon's resignation? As it is their job to do so where circumstances permit, what does their silence tell us?
It wasn't misplaced courtesy. She took her mask off and then forgot to put it back on (apparently). Talking to someone deaf is a valid exemption (apparently) for mask wearing. Walking off and not wearing a mask nowhere near that deaf person is AFAIK not. NOT (to be clear).
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
One thing which appears to have changed is that Giuffre is now saying that Andrew knew she was trafficked. That appears to be a new allegation. Is there some new evidence to support this that was not available before?
Pass but I suspect it was something innocent such as Prince Andrew asking where are you from - Florida without Prince Andrew or Virginia (at the time) understanding the consequences of the statement.
This bit is interesting for @DavidL (page 21 paragraph 55)
At trial, should the case proceed to trial, he perhaps could have an opportunity to prove that Prince Andrew could have been Sued successfully in Florida on the §2255 claim, in which case these claims might be pertinent to an assertion of the release defense in this case.
So the way to bring the Florida trial judgment back into play is to admit enough guilt that the Florida case can be investigated more thoroughly within the trial.
You would need to be incredibly stupid to do that.
Knowing where someone is from does not show knowledge that someone has been trafficked. There is something a touch troubling about allegations being added on at such a late stage unless some new evidence has come to light. That may be the case of course but I have not seen it.
I would also like to understand why she was not chosen to give evidence at the Maxwell trial and why, if she does have all this evidence, the criminal authorities have chosen not to pursue this matter. Also is she pursuing claims against the others she had sex with? If not, why not?
None of this is to defend Andrew. I don't know enough about the facts. But if there is credible evidence that someone was involved in rape and trafficking then the criminal courts are the right place for those allegations to be tested.
Doesn't the Epstein Settlement she agreed to preclude her from testifying against Maxwell? Or do Criminal proceedings not work that way?
While Prince Andrew wasn't a party to the Epstein settlement, Maxwell almost certainly was.
Plus they didn't need her testimony to win the case anyway.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
I have come to that conclusion as well
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
Shall we have a bet on that Big G.
However, I do generally have a good instinct….
You certainly sniffed out early that this Boris character was a wrong’un, for sure.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
PB Tory is a description conferred by others, not something that can be embraced or renounced at will. Think champagne socialist or metropolitan liberal..
Yeah I hear you. I am a PB Tory not in the Tory party (anymore) but will forever wear that mantle. I see myself heroically canvassing for the Conservatives under Dave and will therefore embrace that image forever. As a PB Tory.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
A point of order. Labour and the three quid Tories elected JC.
Perhaps no idea. He wouldn't have been on the ballot paper without the PLP though.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
Takes longer to read that than it takes to invade Poland.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
PB Tory is a description conferred by others, not something that can be embraced or renounced at will. Think champagne socialist or metropolitan liberal..
Yeah I hear you. I am a PB Tory not in the Tory party (anymore) but will forever wear that mantle. I see myself heroically canvassing for the Conservatives under Dave and will therefore embrace that image forever. As a PB Tory.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
I see you've moved on from 'Jezza made me elect this morally vacant arsehole' to 'they're all as bad as each other'. A couple more hours and total self exculpation will be achieved.
Nah not at all. Jezza did make me elect this morally vacant arsehole because I didn't want a trot anti-semite as PM. Of course you pays your money and takes your choice. Plenty did want the trot anti-semite but I saw him as the worse of two evils.
As for La Sturge, they both made and broke the rules. That's all that anyone needs to know. Are you saying Nicola was so plain idiotic that she was unable to summon up the presence of mind to remember the law she herself had introduced. Well that's a novel avenue to drive down.
Squirrelier than a Tufty club outing.
However I was mucho entertained by you simultaneously claiming credit for warning everyone about BJ being an arsehole while whining about Labour forcing you to vote for said arsehole. Reminded me of what PB Toryism is all about, so thanks for that.
Well I am no longer a PB Tory so I will take your word for it. And yes absolutely hands up step forward I admit it. Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the mere possibility of him becoming Prime Minister made me take action to vote against him and that meant the Conservatives.
Absolutely no problem with saying that as often as it needs saying.
PB Tory is a description conferred by others, not something that can be embraced or renounced at will. Think champagne socialist or metropolitan liberal..
Yeah I hear you. I am a PB Tory not in the Tory party (anymore) but will forever wear that mantle. I see myself heroically canvassing for the Conservatives under Dave and will therefore embrace that image forever. As a PB Tory.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
With respect to His Foul Lowness, there is WAY more to his current legal jeopardy than the outcome of the civil suit. Seeing as how he will almost certainly be ripe rotten for a criminal indictment sometime this year, in the aftermath of THAT litigation.
Could be that his accuser will settle out of court. Could also be that she does NOT want Andy's mom's money, or at least that's not her primary motivation? Which instead may be to nail his royal pecker to the wall?
Am starting to think, he will be praying for the re-election of You Know Who, in hope of obtaining a presidential pardon?
At least Prince A still has the option of settling his problems behind the scenes.
I’m sure that is the certain outcome. Is there a betting market we can bet on out of court settlement?
It doesn’t actually solve his problem though as it doesn’t clear his name. For example, could there be other potential accusers?
In practice, he can’t clear his name though, can he? There is no outcome now where he can return to public life and continue opening new branches of Asda as if nothing has happened.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
I have come to that conclusion as well
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
Shall we have a bet on that Big G.
However, I do generally have a good instinct….
You certainly sniffed out early that this Boris character was a wrong’un, for sure.
Over the years, Johnson has been sacked twice for lying:
Firstly, in 1988 Johnson was sacked by the Times newspaper in 1988 for fabricating a quote from his godfather, the historian Colin Lucas in an article he (Johnson) wrote for the paper.
Secondly, former Tory leader Lord Michael Howard sacked Johnson from the Tory front bench back in September 2004 for appearing to publicly lie about an affair he had with his colleague, a Spectator journalist Petronella Wyatt.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Destroying works of art, even bad ones is pretty close to burning books, in my book.
Colston's statue hasn't been destroyed, just put somewhere different.
They tried to destroy it. It was like a mob burning books. Bad art or bad books are records of the past. If we think it is OK for self appointed vigilantes to destroy them then we are on a slippery slope.
I don't think they tried to destroy it - they tried to remove it and throw it in the harbour but unless they imagined it was made of water soluble material I can't imagine they had much hope of destroying it.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Destroying works of art, even bad ones is pretty close to burning books, in my book.
Rubbish - as what is a 'work of art' is very much in the eye of the beholder. I've seen code that's more of a work of art than Tracey Emin's entire portfolio. The little 'un just drew a Crucifixion scene (don't ask) that's of more value to me than 'An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump' (and I love that painting).
Yet in a few months' time, I will be throwing 'the Crucifixion' out with the recycling...
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Is the question to ask.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
Jesus.
I once absentmindedly wore black boots with ratcatcher. Quiet apology to the field master, or burning at the stake? Can you say "proportionality"?
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
I have come to that conclusion as well
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
Shall we have a bet on that Big G.
However, I do generally have a good instinct….
You certainly sniffed out early that this Boris character was a wrong’un, for sure.
Over the years, Johnson has been sacked twice for lying:
But as all that was well known before he became leader, wouldn't it be unfair dismissal to sack him for lying now?
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
It can be good but is frequently insufferably smug and naive in its application of A level microeconomics to every situation.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Is the question to ask.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
Right I've read that whole thing through, and to compare taking your mask off so an elderly partially deaf person can tell what you're saying compared to what Boris did is quite something.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
One thing which appears to have changed is that Giuffre is now saying that Andrew knew she was trafficked. That appears to be a new allegation. Is there some new evidence to support this that was not available before?
Pass but I suspect it was something innocent such as Prince Andrew asking where are you from - Florida without Prince Andrew or Virginia (at the time) understanding the consequences of the statement.
This bit is interesting for @DavidL (page 21 paragraph 55)
At trial, should the case proceed to trial, he perhaps could have an opportunity to prove that Prince Andrew could have been Sued successfully in Florida on the §2255 claim, in which case these claims might be pertinent to an assertion of the release defense in this case.
So the way to bring the Florida trial judgment back into play is to admit enough guilt that the Florida case can be investigated more thoroughly within the trial.
You would need to be incredibly stupid to do that.
Knowing where someone is from does not show knowledge that someone has been trafficked. There is something a touch troubling about allegations being added on at such a late stage unless some new evidence has come to light. That may be the case of course but I have not seen it.
I would also like to understand why she was not chosen to give evidence at the Maxwell trial and why, if she does have all this evidence, the criminal authorities have chosen not to pursue this matter. Also is she pursuing claims against the others she had sex with? If not, why not?
None of this is to defend Andrew. I don't know enough about the facts. But if there is credible evidence that someone was involved in rape and trafficking then the criminal courts are the right place for those allegations to be tested.
Doesn't the Epstein Settlement she agreed to preclude her from testifying against Maxwell? Or do Criminal proceedings not work that way?
While Prince Andrew wasn't a party to the Epstein settlement, Maxwell almost certainly was.
Plus they didn't need her testimony to win the case anyway.
A civil settlement agreement would not stop someone giving evidence in a criminal trial. I read somewhere that the US prosecutors had some concerns about Giuffre as witness.
I am still curious as to why she is not going after any of the other high profile men she says she was trafficked to. And why the US criminal authorities are not going after Andrew (or any of these other men) if the evidence is there. It raises the possibility that the evidence against him may not be that strong i.e. not strong enough for a criminal trial.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
It can be good but is frequently insufferably smug and naive in its application of A level microeconomics to every situation.
Yep, I'd largely agree with that. However, even with that, it's better than the other periodicals.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
+1
Even Cyclefree doesn’t wrap up with “anyway to summarise….”
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
My wife is on a call with her cousin, who is recovering from pneumonia. She has recommended hot broth.
Am I married to HYUFD???
When I had Tuberculosis my Grandma recommended bran flakes to me. I think the antibiotics might have been the thing that cured me though; certainly more so than the fluoxetine that my GP intitially prescribed.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
Better to have one long, substantial post than dozens repetitively wittering on about Sturgeon and her crimes?
[edit: I would say recent history rather than history]
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h That December Cabinet meeting where they decided not to impose new restrictions ought to go down as one of the most important Cabinet meetings in history & one of the ones that contributed most positively to the nation's welfare. Well done, Friends!
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
One thing which appears to have changed is that Giuffre is now saying that Andrew knew she was trafficked. That appears to be a new allegation. Is there some new evidence to support this that was not available before?
Pass but I suspect it was something innocent such as Prince Andrew asking where are you from - Florida without Prince Andrew or Virginia (at the time) understanding the consequences of the statement.
This bit is interesting for @DavidL (page 21 paragraph 55)
At trial, should the case proceed to trial, he perhaps could have an opportunity to prove that Prince Andrew could have been Sued successfully in Florida on the §2255 claim, in which case these claims might be pertinent to an assertion of the release defense in this case.
So the way to bring the Florida trial judgment back into play is to admit enough guilt that the Florida case can be investigated more thoroughly within the trial.
You would need to be incredibly stupid to do that.
Knowing where someone is from does not show knowledge that someone has been trafficked. There is something a touch troubling about allegations being added on at such a late stage unless some new evidence has come to light. That may be the case of course but I have not seen it.
I would also like to understand why she was not chosen to give evidence at the Maxwell trial and why, if she does have all this evidence, the criminal authorities have chosen not to pursue this matter. Also is she pursuing claims against the others she had sex with? If not, why not?
None of this is to defend Andrew. I don't know enough about the facts. But if there is credible evidence that someone was involved in rape and trafficking then the criminal courts are the right place for those allegations to be tested.
Wait for it. That is, until (at least) conclusion of the legal discovery period, which IIRC is scheduled to end in July.
As for criminal versus civil, in this case (as in others) the civil trial will (almost certainly) establish facts that will be crucial to a criminal indictment and trial.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
I have come to that conclusion as well
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
Shall we have a bet on that Big G.
However, I do generally have a good instinct….
You certainly sniffed out early that this Boris character was a wrong’un, for sure.
Over the years, Johnson has been sacked twice for lying:
Firstly, in 1988 Johnson was sacked by the Times newspaper in 1988 for fabricating a quote from his godfather, the historian Colin Lucas in an article he (Johnson) wrote for the paper.
Secondly, former Tory leader Lord Michael Howard sacked Johnson from the Tory front bench back in September 2004 for appearing to publicly lie about an affair he had with his colleague, a Spectator journalist Petronella Wyatt.
That was the lead in to a nice question from Starmer today, I recall?
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
It can be good but is frequently insufferably smug and naive in its application of A level microeconomics to every situation.
Yep, I'd largely agree with that. However, even with that, it's better than the other periodicals.
I agree with the comments on The Economist, although I must say it is a great way to keep up with world events. Its summary of the week's major news items is particularly helpful.
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
US house inflation is 23% in last year !!!!!!!!!
Brace.
The offers I get for my house are ludicrous
And this is the bind we're in.
Put interest rates up, and the housing market goes kaput, a lot of people end up in negative equity, still more used to a decade of cheap credit won't be able to afford repayments. The early 90s all over again.
Don't put interest rates up, and we end up in an inflationary spiral that destroys the economy in an entirely different way. 70s stagflation style.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Is the question to ask.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
Jesus.
I once absentmindedly wore black boots with ratcatcher. Quiet apology to the field master, or burning at the stake? Can you say "proportionality"?
I hope you were sent home. But bad example because you don't absentmindedly wear black boots with ratcatcher. The whole palaver of getting dressed especially at Oh Fuck Hundred Hours precludes anything absent-minded. So you chanced it and were at the mercy of the Master. Same with Nicola.
With respect to His Foul Lowness, there is WAY more to his current legal jeopardy than the outcome of the civil suit. Seeing as how he will almost certainly be ripe rotten for a criminal indictment sometime this year, in the aftermath of THAT litigation.
Could be that his accuser will settle out of court. Could also be that she does NOT want Andy's mom's money, or at least that's not her primary motivation? Which instead may be to nail his royal pecker to the wall?
Am starting to think, he will be praying for the re-election of You Know Who, in hope of obtaining a presidential pardon?
I don't think there is as much danger as you think there is of a prosecution
Much more, he is praying for the continuing good elf of HMQ, with special ref to her cheque-signing hand
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Is the question to ask.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
Right I've read that whole thing through, and to compare taking your mask off so an elderly partially deaf person can tell what you're saying compared to what Boris did is quite something.
Evidently you haven't read it right through. She took her mask off to speak to an elderly partially deaf person (how the fuck Covid secure is that btw) and then "forgot" to put it back on afterwards. Was "the whole thing".
If today is anything to go by the release of Sue Gray's report will be epochal and Boris will be gone
Depends on the scope. Sue Grey is not a criminal lawyer and an investigation report should set out the facts not come to a judgment on the right action to be taken. That would be for a disciplinary panel to determine. The question of whether the PM has been truthful to Parliament is not really for a civil servant to determine and may not even be within scope.
Tory MPs need to realise that this is not about whether he broke this or that rule. This is about a PM who has, in this and many other things, given the impression that the elite at the top are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Quite apart from the corrosion this does to the solidarity necessary in a society, especially during a crisis such as Covid, it completely undermines the Tories Brexit USP i.e. that they were on the side of the people against the unaccountable arrogant elite - a USP which Boris seemed to embody and which seemed to motivate the "levelling up" agenda. If that is undermined what do they have left?
And what USP do any of the rivals for the crown have?
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
You can't write hard & fast rules for this stuff. It's case by case. The Colston jury found (effectively) Justifiable Homocide (of the statue). Other cases (which are unlikely to come along on a regular basis) might be different. Sorry, WILL be different. That's the point.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
And eighthly...
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
Better to have one long, substantial post than dozens repetitively wittering on about Sturgeon and her crimes?
At last! Someone who appreciates that Sturgeon committed a crime. Welcome to the light side.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
Nope.
About 30% are pro-independence About 25% are pro-Union The rest are floating voters, DKs, WNVs and fuck-off-you-pricks.
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
US house inflation is 23% in last year !!!!!!!!!
Brace.
The offers I get for my house are ludicrous
And this is the bind we're in.
Put interest rates up, and the housing market goes kaput, a lot of people end up in negative equity, still more used to a decade of cheap credit won't be able to afford repayments. The early 90s all over again.
Don't put interest rates up, and we end up in an inflationary spiral that destroys the economy in an entirely different way. 70s stagflation style.
I'm not sure I see a way out of it, tbh.
I reckon the hope is to have a decent burst of inflation to reduce everyone’s (i.e. their) debt for a bit, then slowly ramp up interest rates to gradually bring things back to normal without everything going pop.
It’ll be like landing a plane on the Scilly Isles on a windy day, but the alternatives are no more palatable.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
It can be good but is frequently insufferably smug and naive in its application of A level microeconomics to every situation.
Yep, I'd largely agree with that. However, even with that, it's better than the other periodicals.
I agree with the comments on The Economist, although I must say it is a great way to keep up with world events. Its summary of the week's major news items is particularly helpful.
It's like getting 'From Your Own Correspondent' in concise textual form. I love its coverage of foreign affairs.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
Nope.
About 30% are pro-independence About 25% are pro-Union The rest are floating voters, DKs, WNVs and fuck-off-you-pricks.
Yes understands that. No doesn’t. Advantage Yes.
Blimey - How can you have mis-analysed as badly as that??
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
One thing which appears to have changed is that Giuffre is now saying that Andrew knew she was trafficked. That appears to be a new allegation. Is there some new evidence to support this that was not available before?
Pass but I suspect it was something innocent such as Prince Andrew asking where are you from - Florida without Prince Andrew or Virginia (at the time) understanding the consequences of the statement.
This bit is interesting for @DavidL (page 21 paragraph 55)
At trial, should the case proceed to trial, he perhaps could have an opportunity to prove that Prince Andrew could have been Sued successfully in Florida on the §2255 claim, in which case these claims might be pertinent to an assertion of the release defense in this case.
So the way to bring the Florida trial judgment back into play is to admit enough guilt that the Florida case can be investigated more thoroughly within the trial.
You would need to be incredibly stupid to do that.
Knowing where someone is from does not show knowledge that someone has been trafficked. There is something a touch troubling about allegations being added on at such a late stage unless some new evidence has come to light. That may be the case of course but I have not seen it.
I would also like to understand why she was not chosen to give evidence at the Maxwell trial and why, if she does have all this evidence, the criminal authorities have chosen not to pursue this matter. Also is she pursuing claims against the others she had sex with? If not, why not?
None of this is to defend Andrew. I don't know enough about the facts. But if there is credible evidence that someone was involved in rape and trafficking then the criminal courts are the right place for those allegations to be tested.
Wait for it. That is, until (at least) conclusion of the legal discovery period, which IIRC is scheduled to end in July.
As for criminal versus civil, in this case (as in others) the civil trial will (almost certainly) establish facts that will be crucial to a criminal indictment and trial.
But only on the balance of probabilities. Isn't the test in a US criminal trial higher than that? And if one of the key witnesses is Giuffre - the most critical witness of all, in fact - then the question of why the US authorities thought her an unsuitable witness in the Maxwell trial is surely relevant.
At any event Andrew needs far far better lawyers than the bunch of bozos currently advising him.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
To be successful in Scotland in any future, a party will have to be a supporter of independence. Just a case of whether Tories or Labour jump the shark first.
Nope. 50% of Scots are Nationalists, 50% are Unionists, the SNP have most of the former locked up
Nope.
About 30% are pro-independence About 25% are pro-Union The rest are floating voters, DKs, WNVs and fuck-off-you-pricks.
Yes understands that. No doesn’t. Advantage Yes.
Blimey - How can you have mis-analysed as badly as that??
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
US house inflation is 23% in last year !!!!!!!!!
Brace.
The offers I get for my house are ludicrous
Yes, but if houses as a whole go up, nice houses go up even more. So one's chances of ever living in one recede in the rear view mirror. I feel for you.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Yes indeed I have a (stone) deaf person in my family also (mother) so spare me the feel my pain bit.
If it was a legal exception to be able to take your mask off in the presence of a deaf person then I am gobsmacked and shows the idiocy of the whole thing. You said "an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly" so I know what let's remove the only thing that is preventing me infecting this elderly person and bellow into her face.
She will have heard what Nicola said but might easily have caught Covid and dropped dead two weeks later.
But this is fine in your book.
Good; you will also know how people react in the most surprising ways in that situation - they don't always think it through and react by removing masks. And we don't know the distance - I seem to recall they were socially distanced anyway for what little that counted indoors in reality.
The mask thing for the deaf was always an exception everywhere in the UK. Indeed someone accompanying a deaf person could go completely maskless in shops.
It was and remains a horrible dilemma.
So why was she "kicking herself very hard" etc as per her quote if it was an entirely legitimate exemption to mask wearing.
Because she forgot to put it back on, I expect. Very common in that situation if you aren't used to it.
Edit: That would have been the actual breach ofr the rules.
So she chose to "Boris" about it.
Is this really Borising? Doesn't sound like it to me.
".wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again.""
Because she wilfully broke the rules. Forgot or not knowing the law is AFAIK and IANAL (edit) NOT a defence. Speaking to a deaf person some time previously has nothing to do with it.
She made and broke the rules.
She did. The breach was out of consideration for another person, and forgetfulness. She admitted her mistake, apologised and moved on. She did not give it large at FMQ about how shocked and disgusted she had been when she learned of this sickening breach of the rules, person responsible would be brought to justice etc.
Yeah yeah she forgot. It matters not a jot why she took it off to start with. I mean it's perfectly fine for someone to forget the law. Even if they themselves have made that law. Right?
Did I forget a not in there somewhere?
No it isn't perfectly fine. That is why she apologised. Do you see it as a resigning matter?
Is the question to ask.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
Right I've read that whole thing through, and to compare taking your mask off so an elderly partially deaf person can tell what you're saying compared to what Boris did is quite something.
Evidently you haven't read it right through. She took her mask off to speak to an elderly partially deaf person (how the fuck Covid secure is that btw) and then "forgot" to put it back on afterwards. Was "the whole thing".
Horrifying to think that such monsters walk among us.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Well I am of the right...ish. Anti-state anyway. And I agree with you. It is the last good journalistic newspaper left in the UK. The Telegraph and even the Times are very poor these days (Though the Telegraph is dire rather than just poor) and the Independent is a rag. The rest are comics. And even in that class not a patch on 2000AD
I don't agree with much of the political slant of the Guardian but they still know how to produce a proper newspaper and they have columnists and journalists who can actually write.
I know as a Brexiteer you'll be spitting your cocoa out at this, but the Economist is by far the best news periodical in the UK. Insightful and intelligent - you just have to try to ignore when its editorial slant goes against your own biases (as it does with me on occasion).
Yeah the Economist is good too. Thanks to Apple News I’ve been dipping into the Atlantic, they have some really interesting, well written articles.
On the subject of the Economist, those who derided and deride the Brexity view that the EU is a state in the making might consider their great columnist Charlesmagne's closing words (Jan 1) as he leaves his job:
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Of course, some see that as bad, some see it as good. I’m of the latter view, and I am still disappointed my EU citizenship has been removed against my will and I am no longer directly part of such a project.
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Nothing embodies projection more than Tory railing against an "unaccountable Metropolitan elite." As they used to say on History Today. That's you, that is.
Comments
The Prince Andrew story does seem to be a massive deceased feline. It seems to have become the main story on Sky today.
The problem is that this story isn't going away and the Gray report seems like it will be terminal. I don't see any way that won't be critical and that will make it top news story again and trigger the letters.
As for the work of artists, the way I picture it is you have a set of scales. On one side you put their work. The greater it is, the heavier it lies. On the other side you put their crimes. Again the greater the heavier. Then you watch how the scales move and you decide from this whether to cancel. Whether YOU cancel, I mean, not what others do.
Sometimes I find this easy. Eg, Hitler's crimes are imo weightier than his watercolours. I wouldn't want one of his pictures. Conversely, Wagner's work is imo weightier than his racism. I'd listen to Wagner (if I was into classical music, which I'm not and that's my fault).
At other times it's less clear to me. Eg Rolf Harris. His watercolours are not (for me) miles better than Hitler's but his crimes are less serious. Quite a lot less serious. Again I wouldn't want a Rolf on the wall but I don't feel as strongly repulsed as I do about hanging a Hitler. And Michael Jackson is a toughie. You cannot watch that recent documentary without knowing for sure he was a predatory pedophile. But for me his work is right up there and is a massive part of late 20th century popular music. A genius of song & dance. It tips the scales in that direction and I still listen to MJ.
But anyway to summarize, you can't have generic rules on this, it's about the scales, and it's personal too, different people will feel differently about the work & the crimes of different artists, the upshot being we will *always* be in a "total confused mess" about it - and so should we be. The time when we're not is the time to worry.
Might work.
Nicola Sturgeon "forgot" to put her mask back on thereby breaking the law that she had made. Boris seems to have partied in his workplace which we shall soon find out it seems broke the law that he had made.
You can't accept a heartfelt apology for one and not the other. Now, is it heartfelt? No idea for either of them tbh. I suspect not for both.
I mean, what's the procedure? She's handing the report to the PM isn't she? Who then decides what action to take.
Thanks for clearing up the matter.
I would also like to understand why she was not chosen to give evidence at the Maxwell trial and why, if she does have all this evidence, the criminal authorities have chosen not to pursue this matter. Also is she pursuing claims against the others she had sex with? If not, why not?
None of this is to defend Andrew. I don't know enough about the facts. But if there is credible evidence that someone was involved in rape and trafficking then the criminal courts are the right place for those allegations to be tested.
farkinell mate can you keep it pithy. People have got lives to lead here.
Upper middle aged people with yellow lanyards, dressed in black.
On closer inspection, the lanyards turned out to be saying "exempt from mask wearing". I guess home made to look official. Impressive.
Only joking @kinabalu, I enjoyed what you said.
I quoted straight off the sky news, she touched the PMs leg. Imagine it the other way round. For me There’s something about her behaviour which invites the “Jizz with Liz” meme. Which is what my email is clearly saying. Maybe it doesn’t exist with no Dishy on Rishy first. But just look at that picture above for example.
Is she too keen to be seen and known as sexy?
I have Randy thoughts all the time everyday, but if high profile in politics, I wouldn’t pose for attention like that, I’d prefer to Be seen and known talking and listening to people.
You can carry on calling this point of view misogyny if you want Aslan - interesting to see what you call as key evidence.
I have touched on this theme, ladies in politics before. Last weeks PMQs my opinion was a lady in a room of men in suits doesn’t have to make much effort to dress in a way that stands out. So my opinion is don’t. Don’t go down the route of using sex appeal to get noticed, stick to politics appeal.
Did the Scotch tories call for Sturgeon's resignation? As it is their job to do so where circumstances permit, what does their silence tell us?
“I am sorry for the party(/work event)” I attended in my own garden clearly contradicts with “I was angry and furious when I found out what my staff had been up to in my own garden”.
Perhaps.
She was setting an example and broke her own rules. Oh but it was only a mask is something that people decide for themselves.
While Prince Andrew wasn't a party to the Epstein settlement, Maxwell almost certainly was.
Plus they didn't need her testimony to win the case anyway.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1481331534095437828
Could be that his accuser will settle out of court. Could also be that she does NOT want Andy's mom's money, or at least that's not her primary motivation? Which instead may be to nail his royal pecker to the wall?
Am starting to think, he will be praying for the re-election of You Know Who, in hope of obtaining a presidential pardon?
Firstly, in 1988 Johnson was sacked by the Times newspaper in 1988 for fabricating a quote from his godfather, the historian Colin Lucas in an article he (Johnson) wrote for the paper.
Secondly, former Tory leader Lord Michael Howard sacked Johnson from the Tory front bench back in September 2004 for appearing to publicly lie about an affair he had with his colleague, a Spectator journalist Petronella Wyatt.
My wife is on a call with her cousin, who is recovering from pneumonia. She has recommended hot broth.
Am I married to HYUFD???
Yet in a few months' time, I will be throwing 'the Crucifixion' out with the recycling...
I once absentmindedly wore black boots with ratcatcher. Quiet apology to the field master, or burning at the stake? Can you say "proportionality"?
I hope Boris will go on and on.
I am still curious as to why she is not going after any of the other high profile men she says she was trafficked to. And why the US criminal authorities are not going after Andrew (or any of these other men) if the evidence is there. It raises the possibility that the evidence against him may not be that strong i.e. not strong enough for a criminal trial.
"...The EU solidifies into something resembling a normal state, with border guards,debts, currency and, increasingly, shared politics..."
Even Cyclefree doesn’t wrap up with “anyway to summarise….”
[edit: I would say recent history rather than history]
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
2h
That December Cabinet meeting where they decided not to impose new restrictions ought to go down as one of the most important Cabinet meetings in history & one of the ones that contributed most positively to the nation's welfare. Well done, Friends!
Tories 8/1
?
As for criminal versus civil, in this case (as in others) the civil trial will (almost certainly) establish facts that will be crucial to a criminal indictment and trial.
Put interest rates up, and the housing market goes kaput, a lot of people end up in negative equity, still more used to a decade of cheap credit won't be able to afford repayments. The early 90s all over again.
Don't put interest rates up, and we end up in an inflationary spiral that destroys the economy in an entirely different way. 70s stagflation style.
I'm not sure I see a way out of it, tbh.
Much more, he is praying for the continuing good elf of HMQ, with special ref to her cheque-signing hand
Tory MPs need to realise that this is not about whether he broke this or that rule. This is about a PM who has, in this and many other things, given the impression that the elite at the top are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Quite apart from the corrosion this does to the solidarity necessary in a society, especially during a crisis such as Covid, it completely undermines the Tories Brexit USP i.e. that they were on the side of the people against the unaccountable arrogant elite - a USP which Boris seemed to embody and which seemed to motivate the "levelling up" agenda. If that is undermined what do they have left?
And what USP do any of the rivals for the crown have?
About 30% are pro-independence
About 25% are pro-Union
The rest are floating voters, DKs, WNVs and fuck-off-you-pricks.
Yes understands that. No doesn’t. Advantage Yes.
It’ll be like landing a plane on the Scilly Isles on a windy day, but the alternatives are no more palatable.
Do you live in Bath?
At any event Andrew needs far far better lawyers than the bunch of bozos currently advising him.
And is apparently an 'English expert'
But, it’d be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
I think it’s always been explicit, from its founding charter, that a unified state is the eventual goal? Ages ago I shared a link to a Twitter thread that showed comprehensively that has always been explicit and that point was recognised and debated widely, in the press and on TV, before we went in.
I was watching some old Auf Weidersehen, Pet the other week, second series I think. They were going to Spain, saying how good it would be to get away from all the Customs crap to get on to the continent thanks to the EEC that was coming in shortly. How times change.
Real runners wear trousers due to brambles/nettles/thistles. Unless you're Scottish...
As they used to say on History Today.
That's you, that is.