Unstoppable. Ineffable. Like the earth turning or the sun rising each morning.
You can always tell road or city runners - they wear shorts.
Real runners wear trousers due to brambles/nettles/thistles. Unless you're Scottish...
Are you honestly saying he should have deprived us of that view of his legs?
Well, I hear Playgirl has gone out of business. It was because ladies could get it for free, by just standing at the office window with a Coke, watching Boris run by.
"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.
I would distinguish between the person and their (artistic) product. Personally I wouldn't want to ban Mein Kampf (or Mao's Little Red Book), Rolf Harris's paintings, Gary Glitter's or Michael Jackson's music, or Eric Gill's sculptures.
But nor would I wish to see statues or other monuments of any of the above decorating my town centre.
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.
Don't know what you mean by your first two sentences.
And think you are jumping to concluson, that federal prosecutors considered her an "unsuitable" witness?
As for your last point, my take is NOT that his lawyers are bad - certainly they were NOT hired on that basis - but rather that they are working without a net.
Because Andy's REAL defense appears to be . . . wait for it . . . Mummy!
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
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.
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.
I believe from what I read that it was believed that Virginia's testimony would be awkward (as she was both trafficked and later helped traffick others) so they decided not to use her as a witness in the Maxwell case.
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??
Do you live in Bath?
Worse. He lives in Sweden.
And is apparently an 'English expert'
Well remember how someone attacked Andrea for daring to comment on UK politics as an Italian.
"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.
I would distinguish between the person and their (artistic) product. Personally I wouldn't want to ban Mein Kampf (or Mao's Little Red Book), Rolf Harris's paintings, Gary Glitter's or Michael Jackson's music, or Eric Gill's sculptures.
But nor would I wish to see statues or other monuments of any of the above decorating my town centre.
We won't need to worry in the near future, AI can create all our art for us as we please....In fact, it already does, my avatar is AI generated, I just taken delivery of 10 AI generated paintings that I controlled the generation of and at this moment currently having some AI write some fantastic poetry for me....
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
If today is anything to go by the release of Sue Gray's report will be epochal and Boris will be gone
What if it doesn't get released? I mean, what's the procedure? She's handing the report to the PM isn't she? Who then decides what action to take.
The PM will then declare that the report totally exonerates him, and then places the report in the circular drawer.
I mean he's lied about so much already, he might as well go one further step.
There's an awful lot of "After you, Claude" with the possible ways of condemning/ditching the Bozzmeister. Nobody really wants to be the one to pull the trigger.
Understandable, he is the PM after all. But it's one of the things that keeps him in Downing Street Garden office.
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??
Do you live in Bath?
Worse. He lives in Sweden.
And is apparently an 'English expert'
Well remember how someone attacked Andrea for daring to comment on UK politics as an Italian.
Speaking as an American, an obvious cheap shot!
I don't think Andrea was quite so (ahem) negative about the English as Stuart is ...
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
He resigned? We’ve certainly seen an awful lot of him since!
Unstoppable. Ineffable. Like the earth turning or the sun rising each morning.
You can always tell road or city runners - they wear shorts.
Real runners wear trousers due to brambles/nettles/thistles. Unless you're Scottish...
Trousers?!?!
Fine for rambling, not exactly designed for speed.
I am not a fast runner. However, when going through knee-deep nettles, I'd argue that trousers are preferable.
(I often run off-road in lowland areas. At the moment it's a bit of a mud quagmire.)
I never go for trousers/leggings, but I do wear long compression socks. Keeps the mud at bay. On the subject of Ron Hill, saw him give a talk once. Very engaging, if a bit mad. Long record of going for a run every day, even if just for a few minutes. His marathon tales are fascinating, including thoughts on hydration (he didn’t drink during a race, and thought his competitors ‘weak’ if they did...)
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
He resigned? We’ve certainly seen an awful lot of him since!
I think he was removed from SAGE but continued to advise them. Or some bollocks like that.
"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.
I would distinguish between the person and their (artistic) product. Personally I wouldn't want to ban Mein Kampf (or Mao's Little Red Book), Rolf Harris's paintings, Gary Glitter's or Michael Jackson's music, or Eric Gill's sculptures.
But nor would I wish to see statues or other monuments of any of the above decorating my town centre.
We won't need to worry in the near future, AI can create all our art for us as we please....In fact, it already does, my avatar is AI generated, I just taken delivery of 10 AI generated paintings that I controlled the generation of and at this moment currently having some AI write some fantastic poetry for me....
Sadly, your avatar looks like some of the worse creations from the character generator in Elite Dangerous ...
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??
Do you live in Bath?
Worse. He lives in Sweden.
And is apparently an 'English expert'
Well remember how someone attacked Andrea for daring to comment on UK politics as an Italian.
Speaking as an American, an obvious cheap shot!
I don't think Andrea was quite so (ahem) negative about the English as Stuart is ...
Nonsense! Stuart is almost as much of an Anglophile as Malc!
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??
Do you live in Bath?
Worse. He lives in Sweden.
And is apparently an 'English expert'
Well remember how someone attacked Andrea for daring to comment on UK politics as an Italian.
Speaking as an American, an obvious cheap shot!
I don't think Andrea was quite so (ahem) negative about the English as Stuart is ...
Nonsense! Stuart is almost as much of an Anglophile as Malc!
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h I am told that in the garden drinking at the 20 May party with Carrie Johnson were two special advisers who were then working in the Cabinet Office for @michaelgove , and did not work in Downing Street. They were Henry Newman and Josh Grimstone. I have put this to Downing St...
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h but they are not commenting. The point is that the argument this was a purely No 10 work event is much harder to sustain when outsiders there, with the PM's spouse. I assume Sue Gray will pursue this
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.
Don't know what you mean by your first two sentences.
And think you are jumping to concluson, that federal prosecutors considered her an "unsuitable" witness?
As for your last point, my take is NOT that his lawyers are bad - certainly they were NOT hired on that basis - but rather that they are working without a net.
Because Andy's REAL defense appears to be . . . wait for it . . . Mummy!
Re the first two sentences, what I meant was that any facts established in a civil trial would only be on the balance of possibilities whereas to establish guilt in a criminal trial the test is higher.
Re her not being suitable, I recall reading that somewhere, that US prosecutors had some concerns about her evidence. I may have remembered incorrectly of course.
Andrew's lawyers seem unknown and a curious bunch, as well as ineffective.
One aspect has puzzled me. Didn't he have Royal Protection Officers wherever he went? So establishing his whereabouts and whether he was alone or not should be relatively easy. Or am I missing something?
Omicron could in theory be replaced by another variant that is more transmissible and deadly but you could say the same about the flu as well couldn't you?
Unstoppable. Ineffable. Like the earth turning or the sun rising each morning.
You can always tell road or city runners - they wear shorts.
Real runners wear trousers due to brambles/nettles/thistles. Unless you're Scottish...
Trousers?!?!
Fine for rambling, not exactly designed for speed.
I am not a fast runner. However, when going through knee-deep nettles, I'd argue that trousers are preferable.
(I often run off-road in lowland areas. At the moment it's a bit of a mud quagmire.)
I never go for trousers/leggings, but I do wear long compression socks. Keeps the mud at bay. On the subject of Ron Hill, saw him give a talk once. Very engaging, if a bit mad. Long record of going for a run every day, even if just for a few minutes. His marathon tales are fascinating, including thoughts on hydration (he didn’t drink during a race, and thought his competitors ‘weak’ if they did...)
Last year I read a 'ten rules on running' article.
I broke every one. Which may be why I'm not a fast runner.
Incidentally: a decade or so ago, I heard an interview on the radio with a businessman who had run every day for decades. One day he found himself not having done a run that day, but on an international flight. He asked the stewardesses for permission, and jogged up and down the aisle for half an hour.
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
"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.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 1h Feels to me utterly pivotal from PM's point of view he prevents the letter threshold being reached in next 24 hours or so. Story has such momentum right now that if a confidence ballot were held (secret ballot) there may be no stopping it. They have to buy time and they know it.
Unstoppable. Ineffable. Like the earth turning or the sun rising each morning.
You can always tell road or city runners - they wear shorts.
Real runners wear trousers due to brambles/nettles/thistles. Unless you're Scottish...
Trousers?!?!
Fine for rambling, not exactly designed for speed.
I am not a fast runner. However, when going through knee-deep nettles, I'd argue that trousers are preferable.
(I often run off-road in lowland areas. At the moment it's a bit of a mud quagmire.)
I never go for trousers/leggings, but I do wear long compression socks. Keeps the mud at bay. On the subject of Ron Hill, saw him give a talk once. Very engaging, if a bit mad. Long record of going for a run every day, even if just for a few minutes. His marathon tales are fascinating, including thoughts on hydration (he didn’t drink during a race, and thought his competitors ‘weak’ if they did...)
"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.
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
A couple of weeks premature, perhaps. Deaths *are* rising.
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
Who will you be backing?
Hunt, Sunak, or Truss.
It's a shame there are no Tory MPs with I-surnames, so that with an extra potential candidate and a bit of shuffling PB'ers could come up with a suitable acronym.
"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.
I would distinguish between the person and their (artistic) product. Personally I wouldn't want to ban Mein Kampf (or Mao's Little Red Book), Rolf Harris's paintings, Gary Glitter's or Michael Jackson's music, or Eric Gill's sculptures.
But nor would I wish to see statues or other monuments of any of the above decorating my town centre.
We won't need to worry in the near future, AI can create all our art for us as we please....In fact, it already does, my avatar is AI generated, I just taken delivery of 10 AI generated paintings that I controlled the generation of and at this moment currently having some AI write some fantastic poetry for me....
Sadly, your avatar looks like some of the worse creations from the character generator in Elite Dangerous ...
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
A lull, then a new variant. Next?
Are well living through a cold pandemic or a flu pandemic? Admittedly I am writing from Wales where we still have substantial restrictions.
The Northern Echo: Two North East Conservatives replied to our request, Peter Gibson and Jacob Young, who accepted the PM’s apology.
But the three County Durham Conservatives, Dehenna Davison, for Bishop Auckland, Paul Howell, for Sedgefield, and Richard Holden, for North-West Durham, failed to respond.
Somehow the 3 County Durham MPs appear way more political astute than the Tees Valley ones.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
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.
Sterilisation combined with fiscal dampening and gradual monetary tightening.
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.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph article is reprehensible.
Unstoppable. Ineffable. Like the earth turning or the sun rising each morning.
You can always tell road or city runners - they wear shorts.
Real runners wear trousers due to brambles/nettles/thistles. Unless you're Scottish...
Trousers?!?!
Fine for rambling, not exactly designed for speed.
I am not a fast runner. However, when going through knee-deep nettles, I'd argue that trousers are preferable.
(I often run off-road in lowland areas. At the moment it's a bit of a mud quagmire.)
I never go for trousers/leggings, but I do wear long compression socks. Keeps the mud at bay. On the subject of Ron Hill, saw him give a talk once. Very engaging, if a bit mad. Long record of going for a run every day, even if just for a few minutes. His marathon tales are fascinating, including thoughts on hydration (he didn’t drink during a race, and thought his competitors ‘weak’ if they did...)
Omicron could in theory be replaced by another variant that is more transmissible and deadly but you could say the same about the flu as well couldn't you?
Absolutely. In fact one of the risks we face is that we forget about flu for a while due to being focused on the coronavirus. We'd be damned foolish to drop our guard against flu.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph column is reprehensible.
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.
Unaccountable Metropolitan Elites that consider a BYO in the garden as work?
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.
"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.
I would distinguish between the person and their (artistic) product. Personally I wouldn't want to ban Mein Kampf (or Mao's Little Red Book), Rolf Harris's paintings, Gary Glitter's or Michael Jackson's music, or Eric Gill's sculptures.
But nor would I wish to see statues or other monuments of any of the above decorating my town centre.
We won't need to worry in the near future, AI can create all our art for us as we please....In fact, it already does, my avatar is AI generated, I just taken delivery of 10 AI generated paintings that I controlled the generation of and at this moment currently having some AI write some fantastic poetry for me....
Sadly, your avatar looks like some of the worse creations from the character generator in Elite Dangerous ...
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
China, it looks like. Which could well have a huge economic impact, particularly on inflation.
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.
It’s not for sale. My wife would kill me.
Although with some of the offers…
Problem is you need somewhere better to move to and.....
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph column is reprehensible.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph article is reprehensible.
I agree, however in these cases we have long had a guilty until proven innocent trial-by-media culture. So its not really a surprise.
In the absence of legal identity protection for innocent-until-proven-guilty people accused of or speculated about like this, can the journo be caught by the Malicious Communications laws?
“ 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.
If you want to contend - I’m off watching Landscape Painting not ignoring you or running away from debate. 👩🏻🎨
I mean look at that photo - anyone who says she is trying too hard and it’s a mistake is accused of misogyny?
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
He resigned? We’ve certainly seen an awful lot of him since!
I think the 2019 red wallers MPs could be crucial here.
They are only there because the WWC in left-behind towns and villages like Mansfield decided that Johnson was different and would do something and Labour had took them for granted for too long.
But many/most of these voters broke with literally generations of Lab voting. Many talked of their grandfathers turning in their graves. It was deep. It was emotional.
And if they conclude that they were cheated, then the swing back in anger will be devastating imho.
The Northern Echo: Two North East Conservatives replied to our request, Peter Gibson and Jacob Young, who accepted the PM’s apology.
But the three County Durham Conservatives, Dehenna Davison, for Bishop Auckland, Paul Howell, for Sedgefield, and Richard Holden, for North-West Durham, failed to respond.
Somehow the 3 County Durham MPs appear way more political astute than the Tees Valley ones.
Point for us all to be sure of is, if it does go to a vonk secret ballot he doesn’t for sure have the vote of those two who publicly supported.
Whatcom County Council members selected Simon Sefzik to finish the term of state Sen. Doug Ericksen, who died Dec. 17 after a five-week battle with COVID-19. Sefzik was chosen on a 4-2 vote as the council met in special session Tuesday, Jan. 11, and was immediately sworn in. . .
Councilmembers Todd Donovan, Barry Buchanan, Carol Frazey and Kaylee Galloway [elected as non-partisan but Democrats] voted for Sefzik, and councilmembers Kathy Kershner and Tyler Byrd [Republicans] voted for Ben Elenbass [ditto], a member of the County Council who was one of the nominees. Elenbaas recused himself from the selection process . . . .
Sefzik was one of three candidates that the Whatcom County Republican Party submitted to replace Ericksen . . . He was a Republican, so under state law, the local GOP organization submitted three candidates for the County Council to consider.
Candidates’ names were disclosed Dec. 31: ▪ Sefzik, 22, of Ferndale, is a recent graduate of Patrick Henry College, a conservative Christian school in northeast Virginia. He interned in Congress and at the White House in 2020 and 2021. ▪ Ben Elenbass, who represents the council’s 5th District, encompassing western Whatcom County. He works at BP Cherry Point refinery and is a farmer. ▪ Tawsha Dykstra Thompson, a former Bellingham Police sergeant. Thompson left the department in December 2021, but didn’t cite a reason for leaving on her resume and didn’t respond to The Bellingham Herald’s question about her reason for leaving . . .
Elenbaas has said that he wouldn’t resign his council position if [appointed] . . . But all four council members who voted for Sefzik said that Elenbaas’ decision to keep both his County Council position and the Senate seat if he were the nominee was troubling for them. . .
SSI - Sen. Ericksen died in December after contracting COVID; a Putinist (in fact, co-chair of Trumps 2016 campaign in WA) appears he was not vaxxed.
Further note that the state senate seat PLUS both state house seats from this swing district were already in play for 2022 before Ericksen's death; in fact, he was only reelected four years ago by less than 50 votes. One of the current house members (both Ds) was already gearing up to run for senate, so at least two open seats on the 2022 primary & general ballot.
Could be argued, that Dem majority on Whatcom Co Council picked avoided picking strongest potential candidate to succeed Ericksen, namely Elenbass (though he went out of his way giving them other reasons). Waters are still murky, for example will Elenbass run AGAINST Sefzik in the August top-two primary?
The Northern Echo: Two North East Conservatives replied to our request, Peter Gibson and Jacob Young, who accepted the PM’s apology.
But the three County Durham Conservatives, Dehenna Davison, for Bishop Auckland, Paul Howell, for Sedgefield, and Richard Holden, for North-West Durham, failed to respond.
Somehow the 3 County Durham MPs appear way more political astute than the Tees Valley ones.
Must be something in the water on Teesside, the local Tories can only seem to produce total duds such as Steve Turner and Ben Houchen.
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.
It’s not for sale. My wife would kill me.
Although with some of the offers…
Problem is you need somewhere better to move to and.....
We are on the best street in the best town in the best county in the best state in the US.
We could have a larger house or be 20 feet nearer the ocean but neither are strictly necessary.
All other things aside, I find that exceptionally annoying. Taking Scots voters for granted was one reason for Labour being wiped out in Scotland. Saying come home implies that labour is the natural vote for the red wall. Sorry, how about earn it?
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
He resigned? We’ve certainly seen an awful lot of him since!
I daresay it would be much the same with Boris.
But Boris must stay!
Charlie Falconer of all people calling for Boris to resign today. You would have thought he had his own position to consider.
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
Delta caught back up to it's previous peak just before Omicron arrived (See rolling case Ave 16 July / 30 Nov). It's less likely but Omicron could do the same.
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
He resigned? We’ve certainly seen an awful lot of him since!
I think he was removed from SAGE but continued to advise them. Or some bollocks like that.
Which is even more ironic given we’ve seen more airtime from the Fergie Love Shack than all of the other Sagers put together.
Thoughts and prayers tonight to Matt Hancock. Who was forced to resign because he didn't socially distance with, checks notes, one other colleague, whereas the Prime Liar didn't distance with 30 or 40 of them.
Not to mention Neil Ferguson, who resigned because he had been seeing one woman not his wife.
He resigned? We’ve certainly seen an awful lot of him since!
I think he was removed from SAGE but continued to advise them. Or some bollocks like that.
Which is even more ironic given we’ve seen more airtime from the Fergie Love Shack than all of the other Sagers put together.
Indeed.
And usually spouting some prediction or other that turns out to be utterly wrong.
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.
FT?
Not really what I would consider as a Newspaper. Rather a store of ever changing numbers. Incidentally my Dad worked as a distribution rep for the FT for more than 30 years. So I have a house full of FT junk. Not because I like the paper at all but because it reminds me of my Dad.
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).
Yep the Economist is well written but I was only considering Daily Newspapers.
Here's Trump on OAN calling out DeSantis, but not by name: "I watched a couple of politicians be interviewed, and one of the questions was, 'did you get the booster?' Because they had the vaccine ... the answer is yes, but they don't want to say it. Because they're gutless."
"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.
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.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
There are two potential defences.
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that. 2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
All other things aside, I find that exceptionally annoying. Taking Scots voters for granted was one reason for Labour being wiped out in Scotland. Saying come home implies that labour is the natural vote for the red wall. Sorry, how about earn it?
Like Johnson has earned keeping their vote.
I am catching up on pre xmas reading. The Speccie has a long interview with Gove about levelling up. Apparently his plan is to recreate Medici Florence in the north of England.
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
Who will you be backing?
Hunt, Sunak, or Truss.
It's a shame there are no Tory MPs with I-surnames, so that with an extra potential candidate and a bit of shuffling PB'ers could come up with a suitable acronym.
H-I-T-S?
The standard galley blackboard abbreviation for Herrings-in, in Royal Naval parlance - the tinned delicacy known as Herrings in Tomato Sauce to the rest of us.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
Yes. In media law, if they are obviously identifiable through biographical details, you are deemed to have identified them.
Omicron could in theory be replaced by another variant that is more transmissible and deadly but you could say the same about the flu as well couldn't you?
Absolutely. In fact one of the risks we face is that we forget about flu for a while due to being focused on the coronavirus. We'd be damned foolish to drop our guard against flu.
Hardly any flu or RSV about. My Trust has 260 covid patients and only 6 with other respiratory virus.
They may be a bit evidence light for covid, but for other respiratory viruses "Hands, Face, Space" work a treat.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph column is reprehensible.
Here's Trump on OAN calling out DeSantis, but not by name: "I watched a couple of politicians be interviewed, and one of the questions was, 'did you get the booster?' Because they had the vaccine ... the answer is yes, but they don't want to say it. Because they're gutless."
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
Who will you be backing?
Hunt, Sunak, or Truss.
It's a shame there are no Tory MPs with I-surnames, so that with an extra potential candidate and a bit of shuffling PB'ers could come up with a suitable acronym.
H-I-T-S?
The standard galley blackboard abbreviation for Herrings-in, in Royal Naval parlance - the tinned delicacy known as Herrings in Tomato Sauce to the rest of us.
No-one wants to declare the pandemic over but I'm not sure where it goes from here. If cases are falling, deaths aren't rising and hospitals have space where else does this go?
China, it looks like. Which could well have a huge economic impact, particularly on inflation.
Not just China, but a lot of Asia and Africa will be covid zones for this year, and red state America is going to be a mess.
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
Who will you be backing?
Hunt, Sunak, or Truss.
It's a shame there are no Tory MPs with I-surnames, so that with an extra potential candidate and a bit of shuffling PB'ers could come up with a suitable acronym.
H-I-T-S?
The standard galley blackboard abbreviation for Herrings-in, in Royal Naval parlance - the tinned delicacy known as Herrings in Tomato Sauce to the rest of us.
Sounds about as appetizing ...
I'm thinking of the 1940s-1960s - they I think have moved on a bit now.
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.
I expect a torrent of victim blaming. That is the default for legal teams defending alleged sex offenders.
"victim blaming" is up there with "conspiracy theory" as an indicator of abdication from the thought process. Problem here is a younger friend of the victim who says the victim a. loved it and b. procured her (the younger friend) into the sex toy world. So either you believe her victim blaming theory, or you think she's a liar, which makes you a victim blamer. paradox innit.
Just wondering....when newspapers don't name an individual "for legal" reasons, but provide such a level of information that you don't need to be the world champion guess who player, in fact there is only a single individual who fits the presented facts, does that break the not naming them?
I was just about to post about that, it is jigsaw identification.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph article is reprehensible.
Comments
I mean he's lied about so much already, he might as well go one further step.
But nor would I wish to see statues or other monuments of any of the above decorating my town centre.
Fine for rambling, not exactly designed for speed.
And think you are jumping to concluson, that federal prosecutors considered her an "unsuitable" witness?
As for your last point, my take is NOT that his lawyers are bad - certainly they were NOT hired on that basis - but rather that they are working without a net.
Because Andy's REAL defense appears to be . . . wait for it . . . Mummy!
@SamCoatesSky
EyesWhich members of the cabinet have … and haven’t publicly backed Boris Johnson today
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481346084572217349
The one on CH4 News had a large Duran Duran at Manchester Poly poster in the background!
Trying to get into the Downing Street groove...
Speaking as an American, an obvious cheap shot!
(I often run off-road in lowland areas. At the moment it's a bit of a mud quagmire.)
Understandable, he is the PM after all. But it's one of the things that keeps him in Downing Street Garden office.
On the subject of Ron Hill, saw him give a talk once. Very engaging, if a bit mad. Long record of going for a run every day, even if just for a few minutes. His marathon tales are fascinating, including thoughts on hydration (he didn’t drink during a race, and thought his competitors ‘weak’ if they did...)
https://elite-dangerous.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-Me?file=Holo-Me-character-male-1.png
(Uncanny Valley is very precipitous when it comes to faces.)
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
2h
I am told that in the garden drinking at the 20 May party with Carrie Johnson were two special advisers who were then working in the Cabinet Office for
@michaelgove
, and did not work in Downing Street. They were Henry Newman and Josh Grimstone. I have put this to Downing St...
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
2h
but they are not commenting. The point is that the argument this was a purely No 10 work event is much harder to sustain when outsiders there, with the PM's spouse. I assume Sue Gray will pursue this
Re her not being suitable, I recall reading that somewhere, that US prosecutors had some concerns about her evidence. I may have remembered incorrectly of course.
Andrew's lawyers seem unknown and a curious bunch, as well as ineffective.
One aspect has puzzled me. Didn't he have Royal Protection Officers wherever he went? So establishing his whereabouts and whether he was alone or not should be relatively easy. Or am I missing something?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6MCt6WPO4o
I broke every one. Which may be why I'm not a fast runner.
Incidentally: a decade or so ago, I heard an interview on the radio with a businessman who had run every day for decades. One day he found himself not having done a run that day, but on an international flight. He asked the stewardesses for permission, and jogged up and down the aisle for half an hour.
Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
·
47m
It’s been coming for years and now it's finally happening. Boris Johnson’s lies have caught up with him.
====
Hmm. We shall see.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1481345207069257738?s=20
Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
1h
Feels to me utterly pivotal from PM's point of view he prevents the letter threshold being reached in next 24 hours or so. Story has such momentum right now that if a confidence ballot were held (secret ballot) there may be no stopping it. They have to buy time and they know it.
Or discover PB?
The Northern Echo:
Two North East Conservatives replied to our request, Peter Gibson and Jacob Young, who accepted the PM’s apology.
But the three County Durham Conservatives, Dehenna Davison, for Bishop Auckland, Paul Howell, for Sedgefield, and Richard Holden, for North-West Durham, failed to respond.
Somehow the 3 County Durham MPs appear way more political astute than the Tees Valley ones.
The last paragraph in this Telegraph article is reprehensible.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/01/12/danny-cipriani-not-arrested-england-rugby-player-claims-wife/
Although with some of the offers…
In the absence of legal identity protection for innocent-until-proven-guilty people accused of or speculated about like this, can the journo be caught by the Malicious Communications laws?
I mean look at that photo - anyone who says she is trying too hard and it’s a mistake is accused of misogyny?
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1481354471573798922
But Boris must stay!
They are only there because the WWC in left-behind towns and villages like Mansfield decided that Johnson was different and would do something and Labour had took them for granted for too long.
But many/most of these voters broke with literally generations of Lab voting. Many talked of their grandfathers turning in their graves. It was deep. It was emotional.
And if they conclude that they were cheated, then the swing back in anger will be devastating imho.
"Come Home"
Bellingham [WA] Herald - Whatcom County Council names replacement for [late State] Sen. Ericksen
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article257216342.html
Whatcom County Council members selected Simon Sefzik to finish the term of state Sen. Doug Ericksen, who died Dec. 17 after a five-week battle with COVID-19. Sefzik was chosen on a 4-2 vote as the council met in special session Tuesday, Jan. 11, and was immediately sworn in. . .
Councilmembers Todd Donovan, Barry Buchanan, Carol Frazey and Kaylee Galloway [elected as non-partisan but Democrats] voted for Sefzik, and councilmembers Kathy Kershner and Tyler Byrd [Republicans] voted for Ben Elenbass [ditto], a member of the County Council who was one of the nominees. Elenbaas recused himself from the selection process . . . .
Sefzik was one of three candidates that the Whatcom County Republican Party submitted to replace Ericksen . . . He was a Republican, so under state law, the local GOP organization submitted three candidates for the County Council to consider.
Candidates’ names were disclosed Dec. 31:
▪ Sefzik, 22, of Ferndale, is a recent graduate of Patrick Henry College, a conservative Christian school in northeast Virginia. He interned in Congress and at the White House in 2020 and 2021.
▪ Ben Elenbass, who represents the council’s 5th District, encompassing western Whatcom County. He works at BP Cherry Point refinery and is a farmer.
▪ Tawsha Dykstra Thompson, a former Bellingham Police sergeant. Thompson left the department in December 2021, but didn’t cite a reason for leaving on her resume and didn’t respond to The Bellingham Herald’s question about her reason for leaving . . .
Elenbaas has said that he wouldn’t resign his council position if [appointed] . . . But all four council members who voted for Sefzik said that Elenbaas’ decision to keep both his County Council position and the Senate seat if he were the nominee was troubling for them. . .
SSI - Sen. Ericksen died in December after contracting COVID; a Putinist (in fact, co-chair of Trumps 2016 campaign in WA) appears he was not vaxxed.
Further note that the state senate seat PLUS both state house seats from this swing district were already in play for 2022 before Ericksen's death; in fact, he was only reelected four years ago by less than 50 votes. One of the current house members (both Ds) was already gearing up to run for senate, so at least two open seats on the 2022 primary & general ballot.
Could be argued, that Dem majority on Whatcom Co Council picked avoided picking strongest potential candidate to succeed Ericksen, namely Elenbass (though he went out of his way giving them other reasons). Waters are still murky, for example will Elenbass run AGAINST Sefzik in the August top-two primary?
We could have a larger house or be 20 feet nearer the ocean but neither are strictly necessary.
Remember what the Tories promised
Want to actually get it
And usually spouting some prediction or other that turns out to be utterly wrong.
Here's Trump on OAN calling out DeSantis, but not by name: "I watched a couple of politicians be interviewed, and one of the questions was, 'did you get the booster?' Because they had the vaccine ... the answer is yes, but they don't want to say it. Because they're gutless."
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1481355199121960971
1. I never slept with her at all. If dates are specified and Andrew can show that he was elsewhere on those dates or has RP officers to confirm that he was alone then that is that.
2. I did sleep with her but I reasonably thought she wanted to sleep with me too. I had no idea at all that she was trafficked. It is possible that as part of the Epstein-Maxwell shtick they made the girls behave as if they wanted to sleep with the older men. Then it will turn on whether the belief that the girl consented was reasonable given her behaviour etc. This defence would involve questioning the girl as to the MO of Epstein and Maxwell when offering up the girls to their friends and that is where Giuffre's involvement in trafficking herself may be distinctly unhelpful to her case.
Possibly there is a third defence: I have no recollection of this girl because I had relations with lots of women at this time (I was a divorced man) but if I did sleep with her it would only have been because she was willing etc.
But even if he wins the civil suit, his name is still mud - because of that disastrous interview. And frankly no lawyer with a brain cell in their body would put Andrew up as a witness. So the best he can hope for is a generous settlement with no admission of liability and to disappear from public life and concentrate on being a grandad. Getting a settlement is what his lawyers should have been seeking from the start. He needs much much better US lawyers. There are plenty of them about. Were I funding his defence I would insist on choosing good lawyers not the dubious friends and unknown lawyers he has surrounded himself with - and doing what was best for the Royal Family not one rather dim member of it. Stupid stupid man.
I am catching up on pre xmas reading. The Speccie has a long interview with Gove about levelling up. Apparently his plan is to recreate Medici Florence in the north of England.
Wonder if the Sue Gray report will be like the Mueller report
Just facts, no findings of culpability
Allowing the executive to say it has been ‘cleared’ - despite the findings of fact pointing otherwise
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1481356917020704782
After all if you don't make any comment beyond the facts you've found there is little that can be done about it.
They may be a bit evidence light for covid, but for other respiratory viruses "Hands, Face, Space" work a treat.
The PM was right to apologise and I support his request for patience while Sue Gray carries out her enquiry.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1481358087286108169