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.
I would suggest you do not know the current mood of conservative mps if you think Rishi can just make a move and be crowned PM
At present it is clear there are not 54 conservative mps willing to send in their letters and I have detailed reasons from two of them why they are staying their hand
Apart from 54 letters, 181 of his mps have to vote him out, and that is not remotely likely at present
Rishi keeps his head down and the anticipated trigger event happens to Boris, then Rishi should succeed him
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.
Interesting attempt to smear the man. As he is of Asian non-white heritage I doubt he has had it entirely easy whether he is rich or otherwise. The disingenuous fat fornicator definitely has "something about him", and at long last the electorate, including the Tory one has woken up to the fact that it is something disturbingly bad and makes him unfit for office.
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
You were out canvassing yesterday? For the locals in 3 months' time?
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
If not now, why then? Why the delay?
The letters should have gone in months ago.
Then the Gray report ought to have been a trigger.
If not now, what's going to trigger more letters in a fortnight's time?
The longer this drags on without a threshold being met, the more secure the PM (wrongly) is because MPs are going to become increasingly less likely to put their heads above the parapet.
Upcoming events like the Police report or May elections or full and final Gray report could be the trigger but I don't see anything doing it in a couple of weeks that isn't there today.
JFDI already.
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly.
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?
None of the above. They are who they are today, and Boris Johnson is no more Thatcher than he is Churchill. Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson, a joke politician who is unfit for office who is not worthy to lick the boots of even the worst that have been before 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.
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.
And if somehow he makes the cut to the next election the vast majority of voters do what they've always done and vote for the party that they've voted for every time since 1950 (both red and blue).
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?
The polls do not seem to agree with you and he is the stand out candidate
Of course labour are going to attack him as he is a very real threat to the ambitions of Starmer and any prospects of a labour government
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.
I hope he loses to Pecresse.
Interesting recent Ifop puts Pecresse in the runoff, if she gets there she would certainly at least make it close or even win.
Zemmour tied with Le Pen for third, without Zemmour Le Pen would definitely again be in the runoff. Ironically Zemmour is now harming Macron's chances by making it more likely he faces a more electable runoff opponent
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
You were out canvassing yesterday? For the locals in 3 months' time?
I think I've only ever been canvassed once, not even when I wasn't known in my area to have reasonably strong political convictions.
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.
I would suggest you do not know the current mood of conservative mps if you think Rishi can just make a move and be crowned PM
At present it is clear there are not 54 conservative mps willing to send in their letters and I have detailed reasons from two of them why they are staying their hand
Apart from 54 letters, 181 of his mps have to vote him out, and that is not remotely likely at present
Rishi keeps his head down and the anticipated trigger event happens to Boris, then Rishi should succeed him
I concur that I do not know the current mood of Conservative MPs. An attribute I have in common with the rest of the planet.
If the anticipated trigger event happens very soon (next two months-ish) then Sunak should make it. Thereafter he’s screwed. The economic fundamentals going forward are dire.
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”
Lots of things to say about this.
Redemption - This is I think very important. It's one reason why I'm opposed to the death penalty. Even for the most serious crimes I feel there has to be a chance of some degree of redemption. But this also leads to a trap for those who have been wrongfully convicted.
Justice - I think one reason this is happening, and is being supported, is because there's a massive absence of justice in sexual offences. There is a state of near impunity around sexual crime at present, and in the absence of official justice people will inevitably turn to forms of mob justice instead.
The solution is to sort out the justice system, so that more perpetrators are convicted.
Forgiveness - There have been a number of cases recently where people have made some sort of relatively minor mistake, genuinely apologised for it, but still then faced punishment. Society generally seems to be in a much less forgiving mood.
I'm no saint, and I think forgiveness has to be preceded by justice and apology, but it's a necessary step to achieving peace.
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.
And if somehow he makes the cut to the next election the vast majority of voters do what they've always done and vote for the party that they've voted for every time since 1950 (both red and blue).
This is true, but they pretty much cancel each other out, leaving the floating voters to decide.
And there's a hell of a lot of floating voters that Boris is never getting back - but an alternative Tory leader could.
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.
"... jumped on it all to stoke up tensions for their own political gain."
They really have not. In Putin, you have a bad actor who has done bad things: in particular, he has done bad things to the very country he is threatening. His track record is nit promising. People in power have two options: to stand down and let Putin do whatever he wants, or go: "Oi, you! Don't."
Germany have gone for the former. Thankfully we have gone for the latter.
Russia is in the wrong here.
Heathener's response is a classic example of what I mean when I talk about people over analysing and criticising any response to something as an overreaction, when it it merely seems to be a reaction.
Whatever its intent the outcome is handwringing over any attempt at a response rather than focus on the thing provoking a response.
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
You were out canvassing yesterday? For the locals in 3 months' time?
Of course, given current polls we cannot be complacent, even in Epping Forest (though more a local survey canvass)
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.
Slightly off at a tangent, but here's a useful introduction to Johari Windows, from whence Rumsfeld's comment came, and some more recent research. It is widely used in therapy, and I find it a handy tool for assessing personal and practical problems.
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.
You could say that about some people who live in Sweden and your last sentence is undiluted nonsense
The perceived success by Drakeford on covid is why labour are currently popular in Wales
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.
One of the Sunday papers said that Cummings has a WhatsApp group of former and a few current Downing Street staff who continue to feed him new stories
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.
And if somehow he makes the cut to the next election the vast majority of voters do what they've always done and vote for the party that they've voted for every time since 1950 (both red and blue).
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
If not now, why then? Why the delay?
The letters should have gone in months ago.
Then the Gray report ought to have been a trigger.
If not now, what's going to trigger more letters in a fortnight's time?
The longer this drags on without a threshold being met, the more secure the PM (wrongly) is because MPs are going to become increasingly less likely to put their heads above the parapet.
Upcoming events like the Police report or May elections or full and final Gray report could be the trigger but I don't see anything doing it in a couple of weeks that isn't there today.
JFDI already.
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly.
Ok, I will try and reason/guess why as I must go and do some work. (Love the last quote btw., but perhaps The Scottish Play is an example of why things can turn out badly when done in haste).
If there is any coordination about this (and I suspect there is a considerable amount) the timing is critical. If the 54 letters are too soon then there may be insufficient numbers who will VONC, particularly amongst the payroll vote. Conversely, leave it too late and the momentum is lost. I am not sure he is wounded enough yet not to survive. There needs to be some more evidence, and waverers need to be really sure to get rid of him. They will all be weighing up all these matters, including what it may mean to them personally. And before anyone jeers, they might want to ask themselves whether they have ever put their own career path on the line in the way that they might expect an MP to do. I would say it is a knife edge, but I still think he will be gone in the next few weeks.
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?
No - Sunak is Sunak - stop putting people into boxes
Con Maj still lengthening. The rot hasn’t stopped.
Next UK GE
NOM 1.96 Con Maj 3.35 Lab Maj 5
An absolute steal. I wouldn't say it is nailed on. But I'd make it 50/50 or thereabouts. Lab at 5 has to one of the worst bets ever. Needs to be double.
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
Canvassing isn't really about 'persuasion', now, is it, since there's an obvious incentive for people to want to get rid of you? So far out from the elections such indications are worthless, anyhow.
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”
Lots of things to say about this.
Redemption - This is I think very important. It's one reason why I'm opposed to the death penalty. Even for the most serious crimes I feel there has to be a chance of some degree of redemption. But this also leads to a trap for those who have been wrongfully convicted.
Justice - I think one reason this is happening, and is being supported, is because there's a massive absence of justice in sexual offences. There is a state of near impunity around sexual crime at present, and in the absence of official justice people will inevitably turn to forms of mob justice instead.
The solution is to sort out the justice system, so that more perpetrators are convicted.
Forgiveness - There have been a number of cases recently where people have made some sort of relatively minor mistake, genuinely apologised for it, but still then faced punishment. Society generally seems to be in a much less forgiving mood.
I'm no saint, and I think forgiveness has to be preceded by justice and apology, but it's a necessary step to achieving peace.
But how can he apologise if he sincerely believes he is innocent?
This is one of the maddest accusations thrown at him. “He has not expressed remorse”
Well, he has not been convicted in a criminal court so why on earth should be express remorse, especially as any such expression would then lead to a conviction
To repeat: I am not specifically defending this man. He has three other actual convictions for assault which lead me to believe he is a thug.
I am defending the age-old legal principles AROUND this case. Stuff which we casually throw away at our peril
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.
And if somehow he makes the cut to the next election the vast majority of voters do what they've always done and vote for the party that they've voted for every time since 1950 (both red and blue).
Many will, but many (of the blue variety) may stay at home. That will be critical, and particularly if Starmer can convince them he is not a threat to their way of life.
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.
And will Boris get away with lying to the Commons, especially as he seems to have conceded to Keir Starmer that resignation would be expected? Well, yes, possibly.
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.
And if somehow he makes the cut to the next election the vast majority of voters do what they've always done and vote for the party that they've voted for every time since 1950 (both red and blue).
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
Canvassing isn't really about 'persuasion', now, is it, since there's an obvious incentive for people to want to get rid of you? So far out from the elections such indications are worthless, anyhow.
If you are normally a Conservative voter nationally but are wavering then you might still vote Conservative locally because the council is doing a good job. If you are a Labour, LD or Green voter normally nationally then obviously you will vote against the Conservative council candidate regardless.
So identifying wavering Conservative voters early to target in seats the Conservatives hold locally is actually very important well ahead of local elections to shore up the Tory vote
Ultimately this is what Cummings gets wrong. Regulation, institutional norms, information transparency, processes, are more important than brilliant people. Because it is only those things that stand in the way of bad actors destroying systems. It is the current absence of these things causing America so many problems because Trump is a really bad actor. Indeed in winning the Presidency, Trump did more or less exactly what Cummings proposes in his blog (with a lot more money) because the institutional and cultural structures allowed him to do so. To a lesser degree Cummings facilitated Johnson doing the same here by encouraging the prorogation of Parliament and defenestration of Tory MPs who disagreed with his view. Johnson has always had a natural belief in his ability to get away with anything but these successes (in their own terms) can only have bolstered that belief.
I liked the description of Dom as an 8-bit shaman in this.
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 lovely that you’re so selflessly enthusiastic about defending chaps accused of rape. Very noble of you.
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.
Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.
He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
Con Maj still lengthening. The rot hasn’t stopped.
Next UK GE
NOM 1.96 Con Maj 3.35 Lab Maj 5
An absolute steal. I wouldn't say it is nailed on. But I'd make it 50/50 or thereabouts. Lab at 5 has to one of the worst bets ever. Needs to be double.
I concur. Labour Majority at 4/1 is extremely poor value. If Starmer can become popular in Scotland then it’s game on. If he can’t, it isn’t.
He was at -10 in the last full-sample Scottish poll (those Deltapoll numbers posted earlier are unweighted sub-samples).
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
Good to see the classic material coming through. I remember Nellist from 1987 when I was LAB 👍
Heard him speak at a debate once, he was in the original Militant tendency which Kinnock had to expel from Labour, returned to Labour under Corbyn and has now left again. He is a diehard Socialist ideologue
Has he pledged a workers' MP on a worker's Wage this time?
Back in 1985-ish a skilled factory worker's wage was 46% of an MP's. Now it is about 36% (30k vs 82k).
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).
He’s still under the contract Raith stupidly signed for him so presumably getting paid very decently for sitting on his arse. My heart bleeds for him.
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.
I hope he loses to Pecresse.
Interesting recent Ifop puts Pecresse in the runoff, if she gets there she would certainly at least make it close or even win.
Zemmour tied with Le Pen for third, without Zemmour Le Pen would definitely again be in the runoff. Ironically Zemmour is now harming Macron's chances by making it more likely he faces a more electable runoff opponent
What is interesting is the 24% still intending to vote left amongst 5 also rans. What they actually do could decide who contests the run-off. But it's like herding flies.
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).
He’s still under the contract Raith stupidly signed for him so presumably getting paid very decently for sitting on his arse. My heart bleeds for him.
And I think there is a really serious question whether Civil courts should be able to make what are determinations on criminal allegations. It seems to me to be walking or over the boundary of miscarriage of justice, or perhaps abuse of process.
Ultimately this is what Cummings gets wrong. Regulation, institutional norms, information transparency, processes, are more important than brilliant people. Because it is only those things that stand in the way of bad actors destroying systems. It is the current absence of these things causing America so many problems because Trump is a really bad actor. Indeed in winning the Presidency, Trump did more or less exactly what Cummings proposes in his blog (with a lot more money) because the institutional and cultural structures allowed him to do so. To a lesser degree Cummings facilitated Johnson doing the same here by encouraging the prorogation of Parliament and defenestration of Tory MPs who disagreed with his view. Johnson has always had a natural belief in his ability to get away with anything but these successes (in their own terms) can only have bolstered that belief.
The problem is that, though he would try to claim otherwise, what Freedman is ultimately saying is that the system can never be meaningfully changed and we just have to accept it with all its failings. Yes Cummings may be wrong about the solution but, as Freedman says, he is right in his diagnosis. The system as it stands both in the UK and the US is not fit for purpose and is ultimately undemocratic because it prevents change and maintains the failed status quo no matter what politicians or the public it is meant to be serving might want.
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.
Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.
He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
The question has been raised as to whether Steve Barclay will have to resign as an MP if he becomes Chief of Staff to Johnston, Is it a office of profit under the Crown?
Sir John Bell, Regius professor at Oxford University bad behaviour from scientists and from politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people - and that they cannot be proud of."
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
Canvassing isn't really about 'persuasion', now, is it, since there's an obvious incentive for people to want to get rid of you? So far out from the elections such indications are worthless, anyhow.
One may say to a canvasser 'I will definitely' vote for you, in which case you'll be put down as a definite and the canvasser will move on. The downside is that when, for whatever reason one hasn't voted early, then there will be knocks on the door, phon e calls or whatever on polling day. Or one can say the opposite, 'No, no way would I...' in which case the canvasser marks the register as a definite no and if one isn't recorded as voting it's a matter of minor celebration. Personally I would, if I got the chance, see earlier, always 'discuss' with a canvasser of a party for whom I didn't intend to vote, on the grounds that I'm taking up their time and preventing them influencing someone else!
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".
Yes.
I think campaigners have concentrated a lot on the police, the courts, etc - undoubtedly there are problems there that need to be addressed - but there are fundamental issues with society generally that they don't want to face.
They have to convince the public to convict in cases like this. There's no shortcut, in a democracy, to changing people's minds. It's a tough old slog, but it's what needs to be done.
Until it is, any woman who has been out drinking is seen as fair game by juries.
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".
That's one step up or down from she shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt. It is also, in my limited experience, not true. Much more problematic is earlier, consensual behaviour which might show an inclination. But that is also in accordance with the law because it admits the possibility that there was a reasonable belief that there was consent.
A sheriff in the personal injury court awarded another £100k to an alleged rape victim last week in a much less high profile case. I once acted for someone who had been convicted of murder and was sued by the victim's son. I really don't have a problem with this because it is a wrongful act as well as a crime and conviction is no compensation for the victim. It is certainly becoming more common.
As I have been boring on for some time now, drinking alcohol was not an offence under the lockdown rules. Being away from home without a reasonable excuse was. Starmer presumably had a reasonable excuse for being away from home and at that office. The PM and Sunak might well have one too, of course.
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).
He’s still under the contract Raith stupidly signed for him so presumably getting paid very decently for sitting on his arse. My heart bleeds for him.
And I think there is a really serious question whether Civil courts should be able to make what are determinations on criminal allegations. It seems to me to be walking or over the boundary of miscarriage of justice, or perhaps abuse of process.
I read the judges comments, which someone kindly posted earlier. IANAL, but I'm slight surprised, on the facts as stated that a conviction for something could not have been secured. However neither the young woman herself, nor anyone else, and in particular the 'defendants' seem to have come out of the case with much, if any credit.
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?
Well there's more than one type of scam email. You get the mass market stuff, where you're trying to snag the most gullible 0.1% out of a large population.
Then you have the targeted stuff, spear-fishing, where you send a bespoke scam email to particular targets. The mass market scam emails probably help with the targeted stuff, because it makes people think they only need to check for bad spelling to tell if it's a scam or not.
Mr. Pointer, typos in that kind of e-mail are usually deliberate, as they weed out early on people who are likelier to back out of a scam down the line.
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”
Lots of things to say about this.
Redemption - This is I think very important. It's one reason why I'm opposed to the death penalty. Even for the most serious crimes I feel there has to be a chance of some degree of redemption. But this also leads to a trap for those who have been wrongfully convicted.
Justice - I think one reason this is happening, and is being supported, is because there's a massive absence of justice in sexual offences. There is a state of near impunity around sexual crime at present, and in the absence of official justice people will inevitably turn to forms of mob justice instead.
The solution is to sort out the justice system, so that more perpetrators are convicted.
Forgiveness - There have been a number of cases recently where people have made some sort of relatively minor mistake, genuinely apologised for it, but still then faced punishment. Society generally seems to be in a much less forgiving mood.
I'm no saint, and I think forgiveness has to be preceded by justice and apology, but it's a necessary step to achieving peace.
But how can he apologise if he sincerely believes he is innocent?
This is one of the maddest accusations thrown at him. “He has not expressed remorse”
Well, he has not been convicted in a criminal court so why on earth should be express remorse, especially as any such expression would then lead to a conviction
To repeat: I am not specifically defending this man. He has three other actual convictions for assault which lead me to believe he is a thug.
I am defending the age-old legal principles AROUND this case. Stuff which we casually throw away at our peril
The Justice System does not exist to declare innocent the people it fails to convict. Its primary purpose is to provide justice for the victims of crime, because if you do not provide an organised means of creating justice people will seek more arbitrary methods.
Justice is failing for sexual crimes. That's the key problem.
You're spending all your time worrying about a symptom of the failure and not the failure itself.
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".
Cannot different outcomes be decided on different criteria? We decide whether to imprison someone on one standard of proof, but we decide whether to employ someone on a different standard of proof.
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".
Cannot different outcomes be decided on different criteria? We decide whether to imprison someone on one standard of proof, but we decide whether to employ someone on a different standard of proof.
Employment is a contractual issue which is also decided on the balance of probabilities. He should be able to get another job, it just might not pay as well as football.
Comments
At present it is clear there are not 54 conservative mps willing to send in their letters and I have detailed reasons from two of them why they are staying their hand
Apart from 54 letters, 181 of his mps have to vote him out, and that is not remotely likely at present
Rishi keeps his head down and the anticipated trigger event happens to Boris, then Rishi should succeed him
The letters should have gone in months ago.
Then the Gray report ought to have been a trigger.
If not now, what's going to trigger more letters in a fortnight's time?
The longer this drags on without a threshold being met, the more secure the PM (wrongly) is because MPs are going to become increasingly less likely to put their heads above the parapet.
Upcoming events like the Police report or May elections or full and final Gray report could be the trigger but I don't see anything doing it in a couple of weeks that isn't there today.
JFDI already.
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly.
Next UK GE
NOM 1.96
Con Maj 3.35
Lab Maj 5
Of course labour are going to attack him as he is a very real threat to the ambitions of Starmer and any prospects of a labour government
Zemmour tied with Le Pen for third, without Zemmour Le Pen would definitely again be in the runoff. Ironically Zemmour is now harming Macron's chances by making it more likely he faces a more electable runoff opponent
France, Ipsos-Sopra Steria poll:
Presidential election
Macron (LREM-RE): 24% (-1.5)
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 16.5% (+0.5)
Zemmour (REC-NI): 14% (+2)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 14% (-3)
...
+/- vs. 5-6 January 2022
Fieldwork: 1-3 February 2022
Sample size: 1,535
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1490265465540821001?s=20&t=4m8FOdxmtYx2fjecrY40fQ
If the anticipated trigger event happens very soon (next two months-ish) then Sunak should make it. Thereafter he’s screwed. The economic fundamentals going forward are dire.
Sunak himself is not without agency.
Redemption - This is I think very important. It's one reason why I'm opposed to the death penalty. Even for the most serious crimes I feel there has to be a chance of some degree of redemption. But this also leads to a trap for those who have been wrongfully convicted.
Justice - I think one reason this is happening, and is being supported, is because there's a massive absence of justice in sexual offences. There is a state of near impunity around sexual crime at present, and in the absence of official justice people will inevitably turn to forms of mob justice instead.
The solution is to sort out the justice system, so that more perpetrators are convicted.
Forgiveness - There have been a number of cases recently where people have made some sort of relatively minor mistake, genuinely apologised for it, but still then faced punishment. Society generally seems to be in a much less forgiving mood.
I'm no saint, and I think forgiveness has to be preceded by justice and apology, but it's a necessary step to achieving peace.
And there's a hell of a lot of floating voters that Boris is never getting back - but an alternative Tory leader could.
Whatever its intent the outcome is handwringing over any attempt at a response rather than focus on the thing provoking a response.
https://kiwilooseinmuseums.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/known-unknowns-rumsfeld-and-the-johari-window/
The perceived success by Drakeford on covid is why labour are currently popular in Wales
No-one noticed the literary reference in my header yesterday.
Anyway here's some lovely music to cheer us all up.
https://youtu.be/HCTunqv1Xt4
If there is any coordination about this (and I suspect there is a considerable amount) the timing is critical. If the 54 letters are too soon then there may be insufficient numbers who will VONC, particularly amongst the payroll vote. Conversely, leave it too late and the momentum is lost. I am not sure he is wounded enough yet not to survive. There needs to be some more evidence, and waverers need to be really sure to get rid of him. They will all be weighing up all these matters, including what it may mean to them personally. And before anyone jeers, they might want to ask themselves whether they have ever put their own career path on the line in the way that they might expect an MP to do. I would say it is a knife edge, but I still think he will be gone in the next few weeks.
Lab at 5 has to one of the worst bets ever.
Needs to be double.
This is one of the maddest accusations thrown at him. “He has not expressed remorse”
Well, he has not been convicted in a criminal court so why on earth should be express remorse, especially as any such expression would then lead to a conviction
To repeat: I am not specifically defending this man. He has three other actual convictions for assault which lead me to believe he is a thug.
I am defending the age-old legal principles AROUND this case. Stuff which we casually throw away at our peril
So identifying wavering Conservative voters early to target in seats the Conservatives hold locally is actually very important well ahead of local elections to shore up the Tory vote
His ideas are worth engaging with but his worldview contains a fundamental flaw
https://samf.substack.com/p/what-dominic-cummings-gets-wrong
https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1490233802001731587?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/07/original-fight-club-ending-restored-in-china-after-backlash
Ironically, of course, in the book, Tyler Durden does wake up in a mental hospital.
He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
First like Nottingham Forest.
For about the first time since 1980 (or perhaps 1990).
He was at -10 in the last full-sample Scottish poll (those Deltapoll numbers posted earlier are unweighted sub-samples).
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13%
Scottish Government 7%
Anas Sarwar 1%
Keir Starmer -10
Patrick Harvie -15
Alex Cole-Hamilton -15
Lorna Slater -15
Rishi Sunak -19
Douglas Ross -21
UK Government -50
Alex Salmond -62
Boris Johnson -62
(Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman; 14-18 January; 1,004)
Back in 1985-ish a skilled factory worker's wage was 46% of an MP's. Now it is about 36% (30k vs 82k).
But it's like herding flies.
And I think there is a really serious question whether Civil courts should be able to make what are determinations on criminal allegations. It seems to me to be walking or over the boundary of miscarriage of justice, or perhaps abuse of process.
"Far superior in every way to his Anglo-Saxon allies, the French President shows Statesmanship, maturity and common sense"
So says Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey.
Of Pravda.
https://english.pravda.ru/opinion/150165-superior_emmanuel_macron/
Sir John Bell, Regius professor at Oxford University bad behaviour from scientists and from politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people - and that they cannot be proud of."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60259302
Or one can say the opposite, 'No, no way would I...' in which case the canvasser marks the register as a definite no and if one isn't recorded as voting it's a matter of minor celebration.
Personally I would, if I got the chance, see earlier, always 'discuss' with a canvasser of a party for whom I didn't intend to vote, on the grounds that I'm taking up their time and preventing them influencing someone else!
I think campaigners have concentrated a lot on the police, the courts, etc - undoubtedly there are problems there that need to be addressed - but there are fundamental issues with society generally that they don't want to face.
They have to convince the public to convict in cases like this. There's no shortcut, in a democracy, to changing people's minds. It's a tough old slog, but it's what needs to be done.
Until it is, any woman who has been out drinking is seen as fair game by juries.
A sheriff in the personal injury court awarded another £100k to an alleged rape victim last week in a much less high profile case. I once acted for someone who had been convicted of murder and was sued by the victim's son. I really don't have a problem with this because it is a wrongful act as well as a crime and conviction is no compensation for the victim. It is certainly becoming more common.
Then you have the targeted stuff, spear-fishing, where you send a bespoke scam email to particular targets. The mass market scam emails probably help with the targeted stuff, because it makes people think they only need to check for bad spelling to tell if it's a scam or not.
Justice is failing for sexual crimes. That's the key problem.
You're spending all your time worrying about a symptom of the failure and not the failure itself.