There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the club's marketability. That's the free market in operation.
I wonder if you’d be quite so glib if he was black
Or if he was ALLEGED to have commited a different crime, like statue toppling. Or hitting the police. Not convicted, just ALLEGED
Mate, I am *not* a fan of the 'free market' as a solution for everything, and here's an example of its questionable influence.
But... a Scottish judge has judge ruled that Goodwillie and Robertson raped a woman and ordered them to pay £100,000 in compensation to her. That's good enough for me tbh.
Surprised / not surprised that you're defending him tbh.
I’m not bloody defending him. I’m defending the pretty precious notion that everyone is innocent of an alleged crime until proven guilty. Of which I am sure you approve?
He has not been found guilty in a criminal court. He was found to be in the wrong in a civil court - where the burden of proof is vastly lower, and you can lose a case on “the balance of probabilities”
And yet everyone acts like he is a convicted rapist, which he is not, and that he can therefore be prevented from doing what he’s good at. But he can go stack shelves or something. We will let him do that.
Or will we? Perhaps Tesco will be hounded into sacking him as well. Maybe he should just be thrown in the sea
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
Yes, this not only upends any idea of redemption - quite an important part of a fair judicial system - it goes further than that and says there are crimes where the mere allegation - even if you are innocent - is enough to ruin your career. And everyone righteously applauds this
That’s a TERRIBLE precedent in multiple ways. Those who cheer it on now might be much less complacent if it is applied to other “allegations”
Obviously I hope justice is done in relation to Mason Greenwood, but there is a little bit of me that hopes he isn't convicted just to see what happens to his career. He's obviously better (and a lot younger) than David Goodwillie, but I think he'll be getting the sack from Man Utd no matter what the outcome.
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
We support our allies, Lithuania & the EU, in standing against China’s use of coercive trading practices.
That’s why we will request to join the EU’s @WTO consultation into these measures as a third party to ensure we combat economic coercion in trade together
Another interesting factor re; Sunak is that this Heseltine legend seems to have become an internally self-fulfilling bit of Tory party mythology. It never stopped Johnson against May, who first and typically, thought he was above the rules, and then secondly, got away with it, but it seems to be stopping Sunak.
There's some mix of Sunak's natural caution going on with the Tory party having internalised this mythology, I think ; and with Johnsons's ability to have broken on it only confirming his exceptional status to the party.
And Thatcher wielded the knife against Heath and became leader.
Given the mythical status Thatcher has within the Conservative party I would have thought this would encourage her wannabes.
Or is this yet another situation where what Thatcher did is now misunderstood.
Thatcher only challenged Heath after he lost the October 1974 general election and refused to step down as Leader of the Opposition.
A different scenario to challenging an elected PM midterm. Thatcher never challenged Heath when he was PM
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the club's marketability. That's the free market in operation.
I wonder if you’d be quite so glib if he was black
Or if he was ALLEGED to have commited a different crime, like statue toppling. Or hitting the police. Not convicted, just ALLEGED
Mate, I am *not* a fan of the 'free market' as a solution for everything, and here's an example of its questionable influence.
But... a Scottish judge has judge ruled that Goodwillie and Robertson raped a woman and ordered them to pay £100,000 in compensation to her. That's good enough for me tbh.
Surprised / not surprised that you're defending him tbh.
I’m not bloody defending him. I’m defending the pretty precious notion that everyone is innocent of an alleged crime until proven guilty. Of which I am sure you approve?
He has not been found guilty in a criminal court. He was found to be in the wrong in a civil court - where the burden of proof is vastly lower, and you can lose a case on “the balance of probabilities”
And yet everyone acts like he is a convicted rapist, which he is not, and that he can therefore be prevented from doing what he’s good at. But he can go stack shelves or something. We will let him do that.
Or will we? Perhaps Tesco will be hounded into sacking him as well. Maybe he should just be thrown in the sea
On the balance of probabilities he's a rapist.
And enough people believe he is a rapist that doing business with him carries a significant risk of the benefits you obtained by using his services clearly don't outweigh the cost of opportunities lost from being associated with him.
Basically it's little different from owning a Rolf Harris original - one day it was worth £10,000 the next about 50p if you could find someone willing to take it off your hands.
We support our allies, Lithuania & the EU, in standing against China’s use of coercive trading practices.
That’s why we will request to join the EU’s @WTO consultation into these measures as a third party to ensure we combat economic coercion in trade together
Almost as if the EUs and the UKs interests are aligned?!
Hmmm
(Although adding to this - we do seem to have quite a proactive strategy of aligning to/ supporting Eastern European countries. No doubt that is of course intentional..)
NB we are now just 3 days from the alleged 10-day window in which VLAD PUTIIN is expected to invade Ukraine, if he is ever going to
Feb 10-20
The theory is, after Feb 20 the first thaws slowly kick in and his planned campaign could get stuck - literally - in mud in March
Eyes down. Ready….
As I have stated on here, he won't.
They don't have anything like sufficient forces in place. It's a bit of bear-hunting machismo from Putin. Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have jumped on it all to stoke up tensions for their own political gain. Yes it's a tense situation but this has been ongoing for 8 years.
Besides, Russian eyes are on the Olympics. That's not facetious. President Xi and Vladimir Putin are cosying up. I don't think an invasion during the OIympics is likely.
The Olympics - esp the sideshow of the Winter Olympics - don’t have any bearing at all. Arguably they are a good distraction, so a good time for some brutal geopolitics
The USSR suppressed the Budapest Uprising during the 1956 Olympics
Although of course the USSR didn't decide the timing of the Budapest uprising.
Nonetheless the glare of global sporting publicity did not stay the Soviet hand
The idea that Putin will pause his Ukrainian invasion because “omg everyone is watching the snowboarding” is somewhat bizarre
Putin may pause or postpone for many reasons. Perhaps he never intended an invasion anyway. He just want to menace. Like China surrounding Hong long
But it won’t be the ice dancing in Beijing that saves Kiev
I do agree it's not going to be top of his list of considerations.
It is not the ice-dancing in Beijing that will save Kiev but on the other hand, it is. Look at a map of Russia. It's huge. Now pretend you are Putin deploying your forces against perceived threats. It is hard because those men/tanks/planes can't be ranged against Europe and China at the same time because the distances are too great. So Russia needs China onside to mass its forces against Ukraine. Russia needs to be sure China will not be eyeing up Siberia. So Russia may well have made that deal, which may involve not disrupting the ice-dancing.
Then again, Russia did make a smaller land-grab during the Beijing summer Olympics.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
Yes, this not only upends any idea of redemption - quite an important part of a fair judicial system - it goes further than that and says there are crimes where the mere allegation - even if you are innocent - is enough to ruin your career. And everyone righteously applauds this
That’s a TERRIBLE precedent in multiple ways. Those who cheer it on now might be much less complacent if it is applied to other “allegations”
Obviously I hope justice is done in relation to Mason Greenwood, but there is a little bit of me that hopes he isn't convicted just to see what happens to his career. He's obviously better (and a lot younger) than David Goodwillie, but I think he'll be getting the sack from Man Utd no matter what the outcome.
It’s quite hard to feel sorry for multimillionaire football players but the potential for blackmail here is obvious. If it becomes accepted that a mere allegation - not conviction - of rape - ends your footballing career then the sex lives of footballers will come to an end
Perhaps that will be good for England. They might improve their penalty taking via sublimated libido
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the club's marketability. That's the free market in operation.
I wonder if you’d be quite so glib if he was black
Or if he was ALLEGED to have commited a different crime, like statue toppling. Or hitting the police. Not convicted, just ALLEGED
Mate, I am *not* a fan of the 'free market' as a solution for everything, and here's an example of its questionable influence.
But... a Scottish judge has judge ruled that Goodwillie and Robertson raped a woman and ordered them to pay £100,000 in compensation to her. That's good enough for me tbh.
Surprised / not surprised that you're defending him tbh.
I’m not bloody defending him. I’m defending the pretty precious notion that everyone is innocent of an alleged crime until proven guilty. Of which I am sure you approve?
He has not been found guilty in a criminal court. He was found to be in the wrong in a civil court - where the burden of proof is vastly lower, and you can lose a case on “the balance of probabilities”
And yet everyone acts like he is a convicted rapist, which he is not, and that he can therefore be prevented from doing what he’s good at. But he can go stack shelves or something. We will let him do that.
Or will we? Perhaps Tesco will be hounded into sacking him as well. Maybe he should just be thrown in the sea
This is exactly why civil cases shouldn't be allowed when criminal cases aren't possible or fail - everyone ends up treating the preson as guilty even though legally they aren't.
Or maybe we should just abolish criminal trials and decide everything "on the balance of probabilities".
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
Personally, I will never have time for Macron ever again after that disgraceful display back in 2021 over Oxford/AZ.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
Yes, this not only upends any idea of redemption - quite an important part of a fair judicial system - it goes further than that and says there are crimes where the mere allegation - even if you are innocent - is enough to ruin your career. And everyone righteously applauds this
That’s a TERRIBLE precedent in multiple ways. Those who cheer it on now might be much less complacent if it is applied to other “allegations”
Obviously I hope justice is done in relation to Mason Greenwood, but there is a little bit of me that hopes he isn't convicted just to see what happens to his career. He's obviously better (and a lot younger) than David Goodwillie, but I think he'll be getting the sack from Man Utd no matter what the outcome.
The social media stuff out there (Which the British legal system wishes wasn't) isn't very good for his career no matter how the criminal process proceeds I'd say.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Another interesting factor re; Sunak is that this Heseltine legend seems to have become an internally self-fulfilling bit of Tory party mythology. It never stopped Johnson against May, who first and typically, thought he was above the rules, and then secondly, got away with it, but it seems to be stopping Sunak.
There's some mix of Sunak's natural caution going on with the Tory party having internalised this mythology, I think ; and with Johnsons's ability to have broken on it only confirming his exceptional status to the party.
And Thatcher wielded the knife against Heath and became leader.
Given the mythical status Thatcher has within the Conservative party I would have thought this would encourage her wannabes.
Or is this yet another situation where what Thatcher did is now misunderstood.
Thatcher only challenged Heath after he lost the October 1974 general election and refused to step down as Leader of the Opposition.
A different scenario to challenging an elected PM midterm. Thatcher never challenged Heath when he was PM
Have you ever considered that giving constructive criticism would be better for the series of Conservative leaders for whom you have both waved the pompoms and bleated "that doesn't count" ?
Continual 100% support doesn't help politicians - it merely feeds their arrogance and gets them into the trouble which Boris is in now.
So Starmer beats Boris everywhere now but Sunak beats Starmer everywhere too.
Truss is preferred to Starmer in the South and Wales and London surprisingly but Starmer is preferred to Truss in the North, Midlands and Scotland.
Wales seems to like Priti unlike the rest of GB
Interesting analysis, with usual caveats about the fickle nature of polling. Do you now think it is time for Johnson to step down in favour of Sunak, and if not now, when?
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
The stupidity in this statement is off the dial
Any particular bit? Anyway, I guess I'd rather be off the dial then find myself defending (alleged) rapists who've had to cough up £100k just because of an allegation.
Another interesting factor re; Sunak is that this Heseltine legend seems to have become an internally self-fulfilling bit of Tory party mythology. It never stopped Johnson against May, who first and typically, thought he was above the rules, and then secondly, got away with it, but it seems to be stopping Sunak.
There's some mix of Sunak's natural caution going on with the Tory party having internalised this mythology, I think ; and with Johnsons's ability to have broken on it only confirming his exceptional status to the party.
And Thatcher wielded the knife against Heath and became leader.
Given the mythical status Thatcher has within the Conservative party I would have thought this would encourage her wannabes.
Or is this yet another situation where what Thatcher did is now misunderstood.
Thatcher only challenged Heath after he lost the October 1974 general election and refused to step down as Leader of the Opposition.
A different scenario to challenging an elected PM midterm. Thatcher never challenged Heath when he was PM
I am sure it wouldn't have stopped her if it had been the right thing for the country and the Conservative Party
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
Indeed.
Vaccinating five years a year afterwards doesn't make up for the delay in vaccinating the vulnerable in the first months.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Everything about your 1. is wrong. In a 'her word against his word' scenario you simply go with your gut as to who is more credible if you are deciding on B.O.P. The size of sum awarded is entirely independent of the strength of your belief in the Plaintiff's case. And the appeal court adds nothing because it will almost certainly have said The trial judge had the advantage of hearing all the evidence first hand, we haven't, so we can't interfere. And your 3 is utterly incoherent. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
The stupidity in this statement is off the dial
Any particular bit? Anyway, I guess I'd rather be off the dial then find myself defending (alleged) rapists who've had to cough up £100k just because of an allegation.
Perhaps we should just execute him. On the “balance of probabilities”
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Everything about your 1. is wrong. In a 'her word against his word' scenario you simply go with your gut as to who is more credible if you are deciding on B.O.P. The size of sum awarded is entirely independent of the strength of your belief in the Plaintiff's case. And the appeal court adds nothing because it will almost certainly have said Ther trial judge had the advantage of hearing all the evidence first hand, we haven't, so we can't interfere. And your 3 is utterly incoherent. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
Thanks. The comment by @Northern_Al was so dim and confused I couldn’t even find the will or energy to deconstruct it. You did the job much better
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
In the whole kerfuffle over AZ the Irish Doctor's Association spoke wisely - when they heard people were "waiting for Pfizer" - "The best vaccine you can have is the one you can have NOW".
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the club's marketability. That's the free market in operation.
I wonder if you’d be quite so glib if he was black
Or if he was ALLEGED to have commited a different crime, like statue toppling. Or hitting the police. Not convicted, just ALLEGED
Mate, I am *not* a fan of the 'free market' as a solution for everything, and here's an example of its questionable influence.
But... a Scottish judge has judge ruled that Goodwillie and Robertson raped a woman and ordered them to pay £100,000 in compensation to her. That's good enough for me tbh.
Surprised / not surprised that you're defending him tbh.
I’m not bloody defending him. I’m defending the pretty precious notion that everyone is innocent of an alleged crime until proven guilty. Of which I am sure you approve?
He has not been found guilty in a criminal court. He was found to be in the wrong in a civil court - where the burden of proof is vastly lower, and you can lose a case on “the balance of probabilities”
And yet everyone acts like he is a convicted rapist, which he is not, and that he can therefore be prevented from doing what he’s good at. But he can go stack shelves or something. We will let him do that.
Or will we? Perhaps Tesco will be hounded into sacking him as well. Maybe he should just be thrown in the sea
This is exactly why civil cases shouldn't be allowed when criminal cases aren't possible or fail - everyone ends up treating the preson as guilty even though legally they aren't.
Or maybe we should just abolish criminal trials and decide everything "on the balance of probabilities".
"The balance of probabilities" literally means just over evens in terms of betting odds, no? And how is this judgement arrived at - what priors has the judge employed for example? And does (s)he do Bayesian updating in the light of the evidence? Altogether rather murky imo.
So Starmer beats Boris everywhere now but Sunak beats Starmer everywhere too.
Truss is preferred to Starmer in the South and Wales and London surprisingly but Starmer is preferred to Truss in the North, Midlands and Scotland.
Wales seems to like Priti unlike the rest of GB
Different questions though. You needn't 'like', for example Priti Patel to believe whether or not she's doing her job well. I quite 'like' her as a constituency MP, for example, but think she's a disaster as Home Sec.
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
In the whole kerfuffle over AZ the Irish Doctor's Association spoke wisely - when they heard people were "waiting for Pfizer" - "The best vaccine you can have is the one you can have NOW".
Another interesting factor re; Sunak is that this Heseltine legend seems to have become an internally self-fulfilling bit of Tory party mythology. It never stopped Johnson against May, who first and typically, thought he was above the rules, and then secondly, got away with it, but it seems to be stopping Sunak.
There's some mix of Sunak's natural caution going on with the Tory party having internalised this mythology, I think ; and with Johnsons's ability to have broken on it only confirming his exceptional status to the party.
And Thatcher wielded the knife against Heath and became leader.
Given the mythical status Thatcher has within the Conservative party I would have thought this would encourage her wannabes.
Or is this yet another situation where what Thatcher did is now misunderstood.
Thatcher only challenged Heath after he lost the October 1974 general election and refused to step down as Leader of the Opposition.
A different scenario to challenging an elected PM midterm. Thatcher never challenged Heath when he was PM
Have you ever considered that giving constructive criticism would be better for the series of Conservative leaders for whom you have both waved the pompoms and bleated "that doesn't count" ?
Continual 100% support doesn't help politicians - it merely feeds their arrogance and gets them into the trouble which Boris is in now.
I absolutely agree. I find some people's unwavering support of politicians that they don't even remotely know personally to be quite weird. There must be something biological about it, where evolution has created some people who are incapable of thinking critically about people they see as their "betters".
It is confirmed today that Keir Starmer has done nothing wrong with relation to lockdown breaches, he remains a man of conviction and integrity and this is why the Tories and the newspapers have been able to dig up absolutely nothing about him. He is squeaky clean.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Everything about your 1. is wrong. In a 'her word against his word' scenario you simply go with your gut as to who is more credible if you are deciding on B.O.P. The size of sum awarded is entirely independent of the strength of your belief in the Plaintiff's case. And the appeal court adds nothing because it will almost certainly have said The trial judge had the advantage of hearing all the evidence first hand, we haven't, so we can't interfere. And your 3 is utterly incoherent. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
I'll quote 2 paragraphs for those who don't have access
CCTV footage was considered in the case, which provided evidence, and the judge’s view was that the victim’s testimony from before and after the event was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”. At the same time Lord Armstrong was highly unimpressed with the submissions provided by Goodwillie, who, he noted, could remember some things very clearly which aided his own interests, but was hazy over matters that might have been prejudicial to him.
Lord Armstrong reached a firm conclusion: rape had taken place, perpetrated by two men against a defenceless woman. Further details from the night — noted in court — were too disturbing to explore.
So it was a lot more than just she said / he said and the he said bit seem to be the bit that completely screwed him up as it make him appear guilty as hell
On the other hand I suspect Leon and others here are concerned because it may be their behaviour at times has been close to Goodwillie's than they care to admit.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
I don't know the details of the case, so I don't know if he is guilty, and neither do you. Judges can get things wrong. I don't expect he is a particularly nice person. However there is also the issue that footballers are targets for young women too. I am not saying that that is the case here. I don't know.
On point 2 he has had a job offer rescinded because of public outcry, not because he has been convicted in a court of law. I don't think that's right. Should he only be allowed to earn minimum wage in Tesco's?
On three I agree to some extent, but the reason its hard is that human behaviour is complicated, and most rape is not someone dragged off the street into the bushes, but occurs in relationships, and almost always devolves to he said/she said. As a society we need to and I think are addressing consent in a more mature way, but it won't stop people drinking and making mistakes (both sides).
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
I don't know the details of the case, so I don't know if he is guilty, and neither do you. Judges can get things wrong. I don't expect he is a particularly nice person. However there is also the issue that footballers are targets for young women too. I am not saying that that is the case here. I don't know.
On point 2 he has had a job offer rescinded because of public outcry, not because he has been convicted in a court of law. I don't think that's right. Should he only be allowed to earn minimum wage in Tesco's?
On three I agree to some extent, but the reason its hard is that human behaviour is complicated, and most rape is not someone dragged off the street into the bushes, but occurs in relationships, and almost always devolves to he said/she said. As a society we need to and I think are addressing consent in a more mature way, but it won't stop people drinking and making mistakes (both sides).
I don't believe his job has been rescinded - it's a Football contract so will need to be paid in full.
NB we are now just 3 days from the alleged 10-day window in which VLAD PUTIIN is expected to invade Ukraine, if he is ever going to
Feb 10-20
The theory is, after Feb 20 the first thaws slowly kick in and his planned campaign could get stuck - literally - in mud in March
Eyes down. Ready….
As I have stated on here, he won't.
They don't have anything like sufficient forces in place. It's a bit of bear-hunting machismo from Putin. Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have jumped on it all to stoke up tensions for their own political gain. Yes it's a tense situation but this has been ongoing for 8 years.
Besides, Russian eyes are on the Olympics. That's not facetious. President Xi and Vladimir Putin are cosying up. I don't think an invasion during the OIympics is likely.
The Olympics - esp the sideshow of the Winter Olympics - don’t have any bearing at all. Arguably they are a good distraction, so a good time for some brutal geopolitics
The USSR suppressed the Budapest Uprising during the 1956 Olympics
Although of course the USSR didn't decide the timing of the Budapest uprising.
Nonetheless the glare of global sporting publicity did not stay the Soviet hand
The idea that Putin will pause his Ukrainian invasion because “omg everyone is watching the snowboarding” is somewhat bizarre
Putin may pause or postpone for many reasons. Perhaps he never intended an invasion anyway. He just want to menace. Like China surrounding Hong long
But it won’t be the ice dancing in Beijing that saves Kiev
It's a factor. If Putin invades, he needs China's help to weather the inevitable sanctions. Keeping onside with his newfound ally is not a minor consideration.
Incidentally, the recent spectacle of the two of them proclaiming their support for democracy and human rights was fairly vomit inducing.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
Good morning
As I mentioned last night in my chat and e mails with a couple of conservative mps and the general direction of the conservative press it seems very likely Boris will remain in post, possibly until the May elections unless something dramatic happens like confirmation of a FPN
I am pleased Rishi seems to be the outstanding politician in the court of public opinion and he simply needs to keep in post and head down as his opportunity will come and probably by the summer
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
In the whole kerfuffle over AZ the Irish Doctor's Association spoke wisely - when they heard people were "waiting for Pfizer" - "The best vaccine you can have is the one you can have NOW".
What's ironic is that the anti-AZ sentiment has pushed people away from what now appears to be the optimal vaccine regimen, of mixing viral vector and mRNA vaccines, which is superior to even three doses of something like Pfizer. So the scaremongering has managed to harm even those who are considered fully vaccinated.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Everything about your 1. is wrong. In a 'her word against his word' scenario you simply go with your gut as to who is more credible if you are deciding on B.O.P. The size of sum awarded is entirely independent of the strength of your belief in the Plaintiff's case. And the appeal court adds nothing because it will almost certainly have said The trial judge had the advantage of hearing all the evidence first hand, we haven't, so we can't interfere. And your 3 is utterly incoherent. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
I'll quote 2 paragraphs for those who don't have access
CCTV footage was considered in the case, which provided evidence, and the judge’s view was that the victim’s testimony from before and after the event was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”. At the same time Lord Armstrong was highly unimpressed with the submissions provided by Goodwillie, who, he noted, could remember some things very clearly which aided his own interests, but was hazy over matters that might have been prejudicial to him.
Lord Armstrong reached a firm conclusion: rape had taken place, perpetrated by two men against a defenceless woman. Further details from the night — noted in court — were too disturbing to explore.
So it was a lot more than just she said / he said and the he said bit seem to be the bit that completely screwed him up as it make him appear guilty as hell
On the other hand I suspect Leon and others here are concerned because it may be their behaviour at times has been close to Goodwillie's than they care to admit.
I don't know the detail of the case, but I think that last comment is pretty offensive. It might be that they know people who have been wrongly accused of things and are therefore cautious about assuming someone's guilt, particularly where that guilt or even inference of guilt might mean the person is essentially damaged for life when there is a possibility they may be innocent.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
The scum are at it again, I've just had an email invite to "Generate your new Green Pass (Booster dose)" from nhs@bosterpassport.co.uk.
They can't even spell booster right in their email address - poor effort.
Isn't there a theory that scammers do that sort of thing becuase it helps them? If you want to select for gullible idiots who won't come after you later, putting something dumb in the intitial communication does that for you.
Applications to politics are left as an exercise for the reader. (Does anyone use that excuse any more?)
I doubt that was ever going anywhere it was just another attempt by Johnson's desperate fans to throw another dead cat on the table.
Does anyone know if there is any time scale for the met to reach its conclusions on Johnson's antics or can they just let it drag on for months thereby confirming what many said when Cressida Dick came to his rescue at the eleventh hour?
Parliament should simply vote to have the full Gray report published on March 1st regardless of whether the met have got their finger out by then. Otherwise Johnson gets away with it yet again.
It is confirmed today that Keir Starmer has done nothing wrong with relation to lockdown breaches, he remains a man of conviction and integrity and this is why the Tories and the newspapers have been able to dig up absolutely nothing about him. He is squeaky clean.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Everything about your 1. is wrong. In a 'her word against his word' scenario you simply go with your gut as to who is more credible if you are deciding on B.O.P. The size of sum awarded is entirely independent of the strength of your belief in the Plaintiff's case. And the appeal court adds nothing because it will almost certainly have said The trial judge had the advantage of hearing all the evidence first hand, we haven't, so we can't interfere. And your 3 is utterly incoherent. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
I'll quote 2 paragraphs for those who don't have access
CCTV footage was considered in the case, which provided evidence, and the judge’s view was that the victim’s testimony from before and after the event was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”. At the same time Lord Armstrong was highly unimpressed with the submissions provided by Goodwillie, who, he noted, could remember some things very clearly which aided his own interests, but was hazy over matters that might have been prejudicial to him.
Lord Armstrong reached a firm conclusion: rape had taken place, perpetrated by two men against a defenceless woman. Further details from the night — noted in court — were too disturbing to explore.
So it was a lot more than just she said / he said and the he said bit seem to be the bit that completely screwed him up as it make him appear guilty as hell
On the other hand I suspect Leon and others here are concerned because it may be their behaviour at times has been close to Goodwillie's than they care to admit.
If the case is that compelling then why wasn't it taken forward? There must be something?
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
The whole issue around "too drunk to consent" is very problematic with juries. Many jurors just think "don't get drunk in the first place".
Many juries are unwilling to convict someone of such a serious offence, with IIRC five years as the minimum starting point for sentencing, when there is not clear physical evidence to support the complainant. When it’s he said / she said, that evidence isn’t there, especially when everyone involved had been drinking.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
I don't know the details of the case, so I don't know if he is guilty, and neither do you. Judges can get things wrong. I don't expect he is a particularly nice person. However there is also the issue that footballers are targets for young women too. I am not saying that that is the case here. I don't know.
On point 2 he has had a job offer rescinded because of public outcry, not because he has been convicted in a court of law. I don't think that's right. Should he only be allowed to earn minimum wage in Tesco's?
On three I agree to some extent, but the reason its hard is that human behaviour is complicated, and most rape is not someone dragged off the street into the bushes, but occurs in relationships, and almost always devolves to he said/she said. As a society we need to and I think are addressing consent in a more mature way, but it won't stop people drinking and making mistakes (both sides).
I don't believe his job has been rescinded - it's a Football contract so will need to be paid in full.
He just won't be kicking a ball for Raith Rovers.
Fair point. I now switch to outrage at the unearned income...
Isn't there a theory that scammers do that sort of thing becuase it helps them? If you want to select for gullible idiots who won't come after you later, putting something dumb in the intitial communication does that for you.
That's a claim I've seen made — that email scams have moved from good forgeries to obvious forgeries to filter out the cannier potential victims — but I've never seen a study about it. It certainly seems to fit almost all of the spam email I now get, which is so obviously spammish that it beggars belief that anyone could fall for it. I presume it does work, as why would they bother if it didn't?
There is no way Sunak's ratings will hold, he will be into the negatives in no time, there is one direction for him and that is down.
And that's not particularly because of Sunak's virtues or vices. It's just what happens to politicians on the front line. Taking over now, when the next election seems unlikely to be for 18-24 months is leaving quite a lot of time for entropy to do what it does. And that's before considering the Great Impoverishment that is lumbering over the hill.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
I don't think you'd need to remove offside and that would change the way the game is played. Offside is to stop permanent goalhangers. Just removing players to make space would work. See the example of rugby 7's versus 15 a side. Same game, rules etc, but many, many more tries.
The scum are at it again, I've just had an email invite to "Generate your new Green Pass (Booster dose)" from nhs@bosterpassport.co.uk.
They can't even spell booster right in their email address - poor effort.
That's part of their current playbook. Throw in spelling mistakes as it removes the less gullible people from the 100,000 who got the first email.
Yes of course - that's a good point, and I think has been previously flagged on here before.
I obviously pass the 'less gullible' test, which is pleasing, even if I missed the deeper scheming.
They're still scum though.
I wonder if they are merely using this for phishing for personal info to be used on later scams or if they try to sting you for money directly on this one. I shan't pursue to to find out.
Scientists and politicians who expressed critical views of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people”, an Oxford professor has said.
Professor Sir John Bell said critical comments from leaders, including French president Emmanuel Macron, had “damaged the reputation of the jab” around the world, resulting in less people accessing the life-saving vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Bell said: “I think bad behaviour from scientists and politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people – and that they cannot be proud of.”
That's almost certainly correct. Unfortunately most people think of vaccination in terms of the number of people vaccinated, when what really matters is they amount of protection given (in person-days or some similar unit). All those early pauses due to scares have resulted in a huge defecit in protection, and amplified the anti-vaxxer message. It is impossible to quantify the harm, but there is no doubt that morally the likes of Macron have blood on their hands.
The age is massively important. COVID is quite lethal to old people. Even small percentages of older groups left unvaccinated can have massive repercussions - because those small percentages can still be 100,000s of old people.
The scum are at it again, I've just had an email invite to "Generate your new Green Pass (Booster dose)" from nhs@bosterpassport.co.uk.
They can't even spell booster right in their email address - poor effort.
That's part of their current playbook. Throw in spelling mistakes as it removes the less gullible people from the 100,000 who got the first email.
Yes of course - that's a good point, and I think has been previously flagged on here before.
I obviously pass the 'less gullible' test, which is pleasing, even if I missed the deeper scheming.
They're still scum though.
I wonder if they are merely using this for phishing for personal info to be used on later scams or if they try to sting you for money directly on this one. I shan't pursue to to find out.
Both - there is money from this scam and there is money from an improved email list ready to sell on to others.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
I don't think you'd need to remove offside and that would change the way the game is played. Offside is to stop permanent goalhangers. Just removing players to make space would work. See the example of rugby 7's versus 15 a side. Same game, rules etc, but many, many more tries.
But they play Sevens for 14 minutes, instead of 80 minutes for ‘fifteens’.
Only removing players when they’ve already played more than 90 minutes and are totally knackered, might be counter-productive.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson? I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.
He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.
I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.
I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
Everything about your 1. is wrong. In a 'her word against his word' scenario you simply go with your gut as to who is more credible if you are deciding on B.O.P. The size of sum awarded is entirely independent of the strength of your belief in the Plaintiff's case. And the appeal court adds nothing because it will almost certainly have said The trial judge had the advantage of hearing all the evidence first hand, we haven't, so we can't interfere. And your 3 is utterly incoherent. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
I'll quote 2 paragraphs for those who don't have access
CCTV footage was considered in the case, which provided evidence, and the judge’s view was that the victim’s testimony from before and after the event was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”. At the same time Lord Armstrong was highly unimpressed with the submissions provided by Goodwillie, who, he noted, could remember some things very clearly which aided his own interests, but was hazy over matters that might have been prejudicial to him.
Lord Armstrong reached a firm conclusion: rape had taken place, perpetrated by two men against a defenceless woman. Further details from the night — noted in court — were too disturbing to explore.
So it was a lot more than just she said / he said and the he said bit seem to be the bit that completely screwed him up as it make him appear guilty as hell
On the other hand I suspect Leon and others here are concerned because it may be their behaviour at times has been close to Goodwillie's than they care to admit.
If the case is that compelling then why wasn't it taken forward? There must be something?
I don't think the defendant blowing his defence up in court is deemed likely when the CPS decide on whether to prosecute or not.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
I don't think you'd need to remove offside and that would change the way the game is played. Offside is to stop permanent goalhangers. Just removing players to make space would work. See the example of rugby 7's versus 15 a side. Same game, rules etc, but many, many more tries.
But they play Sevens for 14 minutes, instead of 80 minutes for ‘fifteens’.
Only removing players when they’ve already played more than 90 minutes and are totally knackered, might be counter-productive.
I don't see how. Sides defend in numbers, shutting down space. Give players more space and chances will happen. That sevens is on 14 minutes is even more compelling for my idea. Imagine 7's for 80 minutes...
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
Your last sentence is the key and seems to be the message I have been receiving
The most dangerous moment for Boris is if he is issued with a FPN
NB we are now just 3 days from the alleged 10-day window in which VLAD PUTIIN is expected to invade Ukraine, if he is ever going to
Feb 10-20
The theory is, after Feb 20 the first thaws slowly kick in and his planned campaign could get stuck - literally - in mud in March
Eyes down. Ready….
As I have stated on here, he won't.
They don't have anything like sufficient forces in place. It's a bit of bear-hunting machismo from Putin. Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have jumped on it all to stoke up tensions for their own political gain. Yes it's a tense situation but this has been ongoing for 8 years.
Besides, Russian eyes are on the Olympics. That's not facetious. President Xi and Vladimir Putin are cosying up. I don't think an invasion during the OIympics is likely.
He’s still moving troops close to the border.
But I tend to agree, what looked inevitable in January looks considerably less certain now
Perhaps he will just gobble another slice of Russian-speaking Ukraine and use the weight of troops ready to go as a means of ensuring Ukraine does not really fight back.
Faces and lives saved all round. Putin enlarges Russia, slowly but surely, once again
The problem with the Boris-Johnson-causing-the-Ukranian-crisis theory is that it would require co-operation from Joe Biden, for one. And most of Eastern Europe. And Ukraine.
Russia has issued a series of demands and moved a very large army right to the border. Including troops all the way from the other end of Russia. The forces opposing them are tiny by comparison. There is no immediate military threat *to* Russia.
Putin is even claiming this is an exercise. My Russian relatives think that there is a high probability that the Russian military will cross the border.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the club's marketability. That's the free market in operation.
I wonder if you’d be quite so glib if he was black
Or if he was ALLEGED to have commited a different crime, like statue toppling. Or hitting the police. Not convicted, just ALLEGED
Mate, I am *not* a fan of the 'free market' as a solution for everything, and here's an example of its questionable influence.
But... a Scottish judge has judge ruled that Goodwillie and Robertson raped a woman and ordered them to pay £100,000 in compensation to her. That's good enough for me tbh.
Surprised / not surprised that you're defending him tbh.
I’m not bloody defending him. I’m defending the pretty precious notion that everyone is innocent of an alleged crime until proven guilty. Of which I am sure you approve?
He has not been found guilty in a criminal court. He was found to be in the wrong in a civil court - where the burden of proof is vastly lower, and you can lose a case on “the balance of probabilities”
And yet everyone acts like he is a convicted rapist, which he is not, and that he can therefore be prevented from doing what he’s good at. But he can go stack shelves or something. We will let him do that.
Or will we? Perhaps Tesco will be hounded into sacking him as well. Maybe he should just be thrown in the sea
If we're engaging in hyperbole, would you want him teaching your daughter ?
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
I don't think you'd need to remove offside and that would change the way the game is played. Offside is to stop permanent goalhangers. Just removing players to make space would work. See the example of rugby 7's versus 15 a side. Same game, rules etc, but many, many more tries.
But they play Sevens for 14 minutes, instead of 80 minutes for ‘fifteens’.
Only removing players when they’ve already played more than 90 minutes and are totally knackered, might be counter-productive.
I don't see how. Sides defend in numbers, shutting down space. Give players more space and chances will happen. That sevens is on 14 minutes is even more compelling for my idea. Imagine 7's for 80 minutes...
Imagine getting the 100m runners to run 1,500m, and the 1,500m runners to run 100m
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
The stupidity in this statement is off the dial
Sean campaigning against free will, free speech and the free market and in favour of a man ruled by a judge to have raped a woman.
I’ve seen some very odd campaigns by you Sean, but this must be Top 10.
Isn't there a theory that scammers do that sort of thing becuase it helps them? If you want to select for gullible idiots who won't come after you later, putting something dumb in the intitial communication does that for you.
That's a claim I've seen made — that email scams have moved from good forgeries to obvious forgeries to filter out the cannier potential victims — but I've never seen a study about it. It certainly seems to fit almost all of the spam email I now get, which is so obviously spammish that it beggars belief that anyone could fall for it. I presume it does work, as why would they bother if it didn't?
One would imagine both are true. If a scammer wants your help in a labour-intensive process to empty your bank account, where "you" is "anyone with a bank account" then sending flawed spam to millions and relying on obvious spelling mistakes to weed out the sceptics is a good idea. But if the scammer wants to trick you into downloading malware, or needs some access or information only *you* can provide because you are Head of Paperclips, then the email or website needs to be very convincing.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
Does anyone have a view on when the Met might complete their investigation?
Seriously, how long can it take, given appropriate resources?
"How long would you like it take, Prime Minister?"
I have a horrible feeling the lying bastard is going to get away with it.
Thing is - get away with what? The 'crimes' themselves are not the issue, and I think most of us believe that that the covid rules etc were broken on multiple occasions. Slap some fines on for sure - you have to, otherwise any fines for covid breaches should be repaid to anyone who claims.
The real issue is the hypocrisy and the attempts to cover up. Ultimately that's not a police issue, its a voter one, and I cannot see Johnson getting away with that.
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
Not sure about that. Think Johnson may be damaged goods now. Sunak, quite wrongly in my view, seems to be viewed as having had a good pandemic. The country is clearly quite happy to give majorities to rich Tory leaders (Cameron, Johnson).
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
I don't think you'd need to remove offside and that would change the way the game is played. Offside is to stop permanent goalhangers. Just removing players to make space would work. See the example of rugby 7's versus 15 a side. Same game, rules etc, but many, many more tries.
My vote also goes to sudden death penalties at 90, then extra time. And agreed on away goals (my impression is MU have lost far more on AGR than won as well).
So Starmer beats Boris everywhere now but Sunak beats Starmer everywhere too.
Truss is preferred to Starmer in the South and Wales and London surprisingly but Starmer is preferred to Truss in the North, Midlands and Scotland.
Wales seems to like Priti unlike the rest of GB
Sunak is making a grave mistake waiting until May. He should strike while the iron is hot. The economy is going down the tubes and he is getting the blame. His ratings are never going to be higher than this. Scotland +27 FFS! That’s better than the first minister, and every other named politician north of the border.
There is no way Sunak's ratings will hold, he will be into the negatives in no time, there is one direction for him and that is down.
He is head and shoulders above colourless Starmer as these ratings show, dismiss him at your peril
Oh come on. Sunak has no more depth of personality than Starmer does. He has glided effortlessly through life on a cloud of privilege and wealth. He has the superficial charm that the expensively educated has but nothing more. I dealt with him when he was a Treasury minister and nobody would have put him above all the other plausible cheerleaders who fill the junior ministerial ranks. He was elevated to his position because he was seen by No 10 as compliant and his popularity is solely down to the fact that as Chancellor he's presided over a massive government splurge. When has a high spending chancellor ever been unpopular?
There are plenty of serial killers who took quite a few murders before they finally found their type. Often their earliest crimes don't fit the pattern exactly.
On the other hand, if Bellfield's girlfriend is sure... that's pretty convincing evidence.
On the other, other, Stone would almost certainly be up for release right now if he just confessed his guilt.
I don't agree with the legal tradition that confessing crimes is a necessary step to release (showing acknowledgement of guilt etc.) as it puts people who are wrongly convicted in an impossible position, almost akin to Stalin's purge victims who were assured (truthfully or otherwise) that if they confessed to conspiring against the State then they wouldn't be executed. "I didn't do it but I do agree it was an utterly monstrous crime which no civilised human being would commit" ought to be sufficient.
One of the reasons given for excluding that Scottish player from Raith Rovers was that “he has not expressed remorse for his crime”
Which is pretty bloody outrageous as he has not been convicted of a crime, for a start - he only lost a civil case. And moreover any admission of “remorse” for his “crime” would mean he WOULD then get convicted.
And perhaps - just perhaps - he is innocent?
He may not be a very nice man, judging by his ACTUAL convictions but the idea we can prevent someone plying their trade because we don’t like them, and suspect they MIGHT be guilty, is really quite an appalling new principle that we have casually accepted
It's free market economics in action, like it or lump it.
What a juvenile remark
In what sense is it juvenile?
No club will touch Goodwillie because of the impact it will have on sponsors and the clubs marketability. That's the free market in operation.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous route to go down. If someone has been convicted of the crime, then perhaps you can make more of a case. But what of redemption? Of serving your time? There seems to be some crimes that you are not allowed to atone for. Maybe that's what people want, but if thats the case, say so.
But when someone has not been convicted? There is a lower burden of proof in the civil case, and without knowing too many details, I suspect this has been a her word against his scenario. None of us know the truth. yet he has been denied gainful employment. Thats not right.
!. Do you seriously think that in a 'her word against his word' scenario that a judge would order him and his mate to pay £100K compensation, and that he would subsequently lose the appeal he made? Seriously?
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
The stupidity in this statement is off the dial
Sean campaigning against free will, free speech and the free market and in favour of a man ruled by a judge to have raped a woman.
I’ve seen some very odd campaigns by you Sean, but this must be Top 10.
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
He's rich now, due mainly to his own career success, but his background isn't that out of the norm, with a GP father and pharmacist mother, both of them migrants from East Africa. It's not like Sunak was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I doubt that his parents had an easy life when they moved to the UK as children.
I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"
There has to be a better way surely...
Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.
or
Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
Penalties at 90 minutes is the way to go. Then at least you get 30 minutes of football where one team has to try to score. I watched the extra time last night - it wasn't terrible, but I think it would be better to have them play knowing the outcome of the penalties.
By the way, UEFA have scrapped the away goals rule. Now, it's always been controversial, and as an Arsenal fan I don't like it (I think we've won once on away goals and lost seven or eight times!).
But... it does reduce the number of draws, and once away goals are settled in the second leg, it creates the situation where one team has to try to score, which tends to create drama.
Agreed - more awful penalty shootouts to come.
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
I hate penalties as it tests only one skill - how good a player is at penalties. I'd rather gradually reduce the number of players on the pitch during extra time (one per side, every five minutes). I doubt that we would reach 6 a side as the greater space would create chances. At least then games would be decided by football, not just penalty kicks.
It’s not even about taking penalties, as much as it’s about the mental pressure of the situation. Maybe abolish the offside rule during extra time, as well as reducing the number of players on the pitch?
I don't think you'd need to remove offside and that would change the way the game is played. Offside is to stop permanent goalhangers. Just removing players to make space would work. See the example of rugby 7's versus 15 a side. Same game, rules etc, but many, many more tries.
My vote also goes to sudden death penalties at 90...
A radical solution to the pensions and health spending crisis.
NB we are now just 3 days from the alleged 10-day window in which VLAD PUTIIN is expected to invade Ukraine, if he is ever going to
Feb 10-20
The theory is, after Feb 20 the first thaws slowly kick in and his planned campaign could get stuck - literally - in mud in March
Eyes down. Ready….
As I have stated on here, he won't.
They don't have anything like sufficient forces in place. It's a bit of bear-hunting machismo from Putin. Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have jumped on it all to stoke up tensions for their own political gain. Yes it's a tense situation but this has been ongoing for 8 years.
Besides, Russian eyes are on the Olympics. That's not facetious. President Xi and Vladimir Putin are cosying up. I don't think an invasion during the OIympics is likely.
The Olympics - esp the sideshow of the Winter Olympics - don’t have any bearing at all. Arguably they are a good distraction, so a good time for some brutal geopolitics
The USSR suppressed the Budapest Uprising during the 1956 Olympics
Although of course the USSR didn't decide the timing of the Budapest uprising.
Nonetheless the glare of global sporting publicity did not stay the Soviet hand
The idea that Putin will pause his Ukrainian invasion because “omg everyone is watching the snowboarding” is somewhat bizarre
Putin may pause or postpone for many reasons. Perhaps he never intended an invasion anyway. He just want to menace. Like China surrounding Hong long
But it won’t be the ice dancing in Beijing that saves Kiev
It's a factor. If Putin invades, he needs China's help to weather the inevitable sanctions. Keeping onside with his newfound ally is not a minor consideration.
Incidentally, the recent spectacle of the two of them proclaiming their support for democracy and human rights was fairly vomit inducing.
The dog returns to his vomit.
In the Goode Olde Days of the Soviet Union, it wasn't uncommon to have MPs* on the TV, regaling us with the idea that the USSR was more "democratic" than the West because they offered full employment. And free child care.
Another good one was that the constitution of the USSR gave far better protection for human rights than constitutions of various Western countries......
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
Does anyone have a view on when the Met might complete their investigation?
Seriously, how long can it take, given appropriate resources?
"How long would you like it take, Prime Minister?"
I have a horrible feeling the lying bastard is going to get away with it.
Thing is - get away with what? The 'crimes' themselves are not the issue, and I think most of us believe that that the covid rules etc were broken on multiple occasions. Slap some fines on for sure - you have to, otherwise any fines for covid breaches should be repaid to anyone who claims.
The real issue is the hypocrisy and the attempts to cover up. Ultimately that's not a police issue, its a voter one, and I cannot see Johnson getting away with that.
Your last sentence is why Boris is on notice from his mps and in the event he does not recover, which is very possible, then they will act and in time for GE24
It is interesting that Guto Harri is taking Cummings on directly, and accusations of misogyny are being levelled at Lord Ashcroft over his Carrie article
Attempts to change the narrative but will they work and if not, Rishi awaits
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
Your last sentence is the key and seems to be the message I have been receiving
The most dangerous moment for Boris is if he is issued with a FPN
I still hold to the idea that the market is mis-priced, because it is looking at the scandals/evidence *so far*.
What tis the betting that there is nothing more to come? From our perspective, an unknown unknown?
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
Status quo bias
Also, the facts change. I did think Boris gave the Tories the best chance of winning a maj in 2024 (or whenever), even if he is also a bigger risk. Now I am much less sure
The negatives are now so mightily against him. The polling is so awful. People want a person to blame for the misery of covid and lockdown and they have chosen Boris, not without reason, either
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
Your last sentence is the key and seems to be the message I have been receiving
The most dangerous moment for Boris is if he is issued with a FPN
I still hold to the idea that the market is mis-priced, because it is looking at the scandals/evidence *so far*.
What tis the betting that there is nothing more to come? From our perspective, an unknown unknown?
Hard to believe there aren't plenty more scandals to come during any remaining Johnson premiership - scandals already committed and those he's yet to perpetrate.
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
Status quo bias
Also, the facts change. I did think Boris gave the Tories the best chance of winning a maj in 2024 (or whenever), even if he is also a bigger risk. Now I am much less sure
The negatives are now so mightily against him. The polling is so awful. People want a person to blame for the misery of covid and lockdown and they have chosen Boris, not without reason, either
Canvassing yesterday we found a few 2019 Tory voters who would not vote Conservative nationally at the moment although after a bit of persuasion some of them would still vote Tory locally.
Certainly Boris has to turn it round by the local elections even if he survives any VONC this week
So Starmer beats Boris everywhere now but Sunak beats Starmer everywhere too.
Truss is preferred to Starmer in the South and Wales and London surprisingly but Starmer is preferred to Truss in the North, Midlands and Scotland.
Wales seems to like Priti unlike the rest of GB
Wales also liked UKIP enough for them to have Welsh Assembly seats.
There is a significant minority of extremely nasty characters residing in Wales these days. These British Nationalists bring the United Kingdom into disrepute. The fall in Welsh Conservative support cannot be dissociated from the transmogrification of the Westminster government into Neo-UKIP.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
Your last sentence is the key and seems to be the message I have been receiving
The most dangerous moment for Boris is if he is issued with a FPN
I still hold to the idea that the market is mis-priced, because it is looking at the scandals/evidence *so far*.
What tis the betting that there is nothing more to come? From our perspective, an unknown unknown?
Surely a known unknown, if we are speculating about it? The unknown unknown is something we never even thought about.
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
Does anyone have a view on when the Met might complete their investigation?
Seriously, how long can it take, given appropriate resources?
"How long would you like it take, Prime Minister?"
I have a horrible feeling the lying bastard is going to get away with it.
Thing is - get away with what? The 'crimes' themselves are not the issue, and I think most of us believe that that the covid rules etc were broken on multiple occasions. Slap some fines on for sure - you have to, otherwise any fines for covid breaches should be repaid to anyone who claims.
The real issue is the hypocrisy and the attempts to cover up. Ultimately that's not a police issue, its a voter one, and I cannot see Johnson getting away with that.
It's the voter issue really, the sad thing is I worry that all the lying and so on will be forgotten in the cut and thrust.
Sunak is a dweeb; he's spineless and even more boring than SKS. He's just a filthy rich boy who has no understanding of the struggles that most people in this country have to endure day after day.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
Sunak is John Major, Boris is Thatcher post poll tax, Starmer is Neil Kinnock?
Comments
He has not been found guilty in a criminal court. He was found to be in the wrong in a civil court - where the burden of proof is vastly lower, and you can lose a case on “the balance of probabilities”
And yet everyone acts like he is a convicted rapist, which he is not, and that he can therefore be prevented from doing what he’s good at. But he can go stack shelves or something. We will let him do that.
Or will we? Perhaps Tesco will be hounded into sacking him as well. Maybe he should just be thrown in the sea
Increasingly these days the players are slotting them away like automatons which makes for a tedious watch. I appreciate last night's was decided within 10 pens but look at the Europa cup last year 21 scored penalties until a goalkeeper (!) missed one. Zzzzzz.
Hmmm
A different scenario to challenging an elected PM midterm. Thatcher never challenged Heath when he was PM
And enough people believe he is a rapist that doing business with him carries a significant risk of the benefits you obtained by using his services clearly don't outweigh the cost of opportunities lost from being associated with him.
Basically it's little different from owning a Rolf Harris original - one day it was worth £10,000 the next about 50p if you could find someone willing to take it off your hands.
Then again, Russia did make a smaller land-grab during the Beijing summer Olympics.
Perhaps that will be good for England. They might improve their penalty taking via sublimated libido
Or maybe we should just abolish criminal trials and decide everything "on the balance of probabilities".
2. He hasn't been denied gainful employment - there's lots of low-profile jobs out there. Val McDermid, Raith's female footballers and others have exercised their freedom to campaign against him playing for their club. It's a free world.
3. Rather than sympathising with this bloke, he should be regarded as extremely lucky to be free at all. If it weren't so hard (rightly) to convict in rape trials, he'd be locked up.
I hope he loses to Pecresse.
Truss is preferred to Starmer in the South and Wales and London surprisingly but Starmer is preferred to Truss in the North, Midlands and Scotland.
Wales seems to like Priti unlike the rest of GB
Continual 100% support doesn't help politicians - it merely feeds their arrogance and gets them into the trouble which Boris is in now.
Vaccinating five years a year afterwards doesn't make up for the delay in vaccinating the vulnerable in the first months.
There's subsamples and there's subsamples.
And now, a swim. Later
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
The whole issue around "too drunk to consent" is very problematic with juries. Many jurors just think "don't get drunk in the first place".
And how is this judgement arrived at - what priors has the judge employed for example? And does (s)he do Bayesian updating in the light of the evidence? Altogether rather murky imo.
I quite 'like' her as a constituency MP, for example, but think she's a disaster as Home Sec.
I'll quote 2 paragraphs for those who don't have access
CCTV footage was considered in the case, which provided evidence, and the judge’s view was that the victim’s testimony from before and after the event was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”. At the same time Lord Armstrong was highly unimpressed with the submissions provided by Goodwillie, who, he noted, could remember some things very clearly which aided his own interests, but was hazy over matters that might have been prejudicial to him.
Lord Armstrong reached a firm conclusion: rape had taken place, perpetrated by two men against a defenceless woman. Further details from the night — noted in court — were too disturbing to explore.
So it was a lot more than just she said / he said and the he said bit seem to be the bit that completely screwed him up as it make him appear guilty as hell
On the other hand I suspect Leon and others here are concerned because it may be their behaviour at times has been close to Goodwillie's than they care to admit.
They can't even spell booster right in their email address - poor effort.
On point 2 he has had a job offer rescinded because of public outcry, not because he has been convicted in a court of law. I don't think that's right. Should he only be allowed to earn minimum wage in Tesco's?
On three I agree to some extent, but the reason its hard is that human behaviour is complicated, and most rape is not someone dragged off the street into the bushes, but occurs in relationships, and almost always devolves to he said/she said. As a society we need to and I think are addressing consent in a more mature way, but it won't stop people drinking and making mistakes (both sides).
He just won't be kicking a ball for Raith Rovers.
If Putin invades, he needs China's help to weather the inevitable sanctions. Keeping onside with his newfound ally is not a minor consideration.
Incidentally, the recent spectacle of the two of them proclaiming their support for democracy and human rights was fairly vomit inducing.
As I mentioned last night in my chat and e mails with a couple of conservative mps and the general direction of the conservative press it seems very likely Boris will remain in post, possibly until the May elections unless something dramatic happens like confirmation of a FPN
I am pleased Rishi seems to be the outstanding politician in the court of public opinion and he simply needs to keep in post and head down as his opportunity will come and probably by the summer
Seriously, how long can it take, given appropriate resources?
We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him.
And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
Applications to politics are left as an exercise for the reader. (Does anyone use that excuse any more?)
Does anyone know if there is any time scale for the met to reach its conclusions on Johnson's antics or can they just let it drag on for months thereby confirming what many said when Cressida Dick came to his rescue at the eleventh hour?
Parliament should simply vote to have the full Gray report published on March 1st regardless of whether the met have got their finger out by then. Otherwise Johnson gets away with it yet again.
The parties themselves can't be a problem as there is photographic evidence but that probably isn't the only thing being investigated.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
I obviously pass the 'less gullible' test, which is pleasing, even if I missed the deeper scheming.
They're still scum though.
I wonder if they are merely using this for phishing for personal info to be used on later scams or if they try to sting you for money directly on this one. I shan't pursue to to find out.
Only removing players when they’ve already played more than 90 minutes and are totally knackered, might be counter-productive.
I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.
He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.
I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.
I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
@Leon mentioned this many times and I agree with him on this; Boris gives the best chance of a Tory victory at the next GE.
Whatever you say, the disingenuous fat fornicator has something about him.
The most dangerous moment for Boris is if he is issued with a FPN
Russia has issued a series of demands and moved a very large army right to the border. Including troops all the way from the other end of Russia. The forces opposing them are tiny by comparison. There is no immediate military threat *to* Russia.
Putin is even claiming this is an exercise. My Russian relatives think that there is a high probability that the Russian military will cross the border.
I’ve seen some very odd campaigns by you Sean, but this must be Top 10.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/17/david-goodwillie-david-robertson-judge-rules-raped-woman
The real issue is the hypocrisy and the attempts to cover up. Ultimately that's not a police issue, its a voter one, and I cannot see Johnson getting away with that.
Sunak, quite wrongly in my view, seems to be viewed as having had a good pandemic.
The country is clearly quite happy to give majorities to rich Tory leaders (Cameron, Johnson).
But stop calling me “Sean”, it’s just fucking boring. And I hope the mods agree it is also unacceptable
In the Goode Olde Days of the Soviet Union, it wasn't uncommon to have MPs* on the TV, regaling us with the idea that the USSR was more "democratic" than the West because they offered full employment. And free child care.
Another good one was that the constitution of the USSR gave far better protection for human rights than constitutions of various Western countries......
*Of the Useful Idiot type
It is interesting that Guto Harri is taking Cummings on directly, and accusations of misogyny are being levelled at Lord Ashcroft over his Carrie article
Attempts to change the narrative but will they work and if not, Rishi awaits
What tis the betting that there is nothing more to come? From our perspective, an unknown unknown?
The negatives are now so mightily against him. The polling is so awful. People want a person to blame for the misery of covid and lockdown and they have chosen Boris, not without reason, either
Certainly Boris has to turn it round by the local elections even if he survives any VONC this week