Morning all! Nice sunny day here in Cambridge, and the first time I've been outside since getting Covid 10 days ago.
Walked my daughter to school and saw a grand total of 3 party boards - 2 Labour, and 1 LD. Gone are the days of a sea of Orange Diamonds on the south side of Cambridge City.
I also discovered a Labour party leaflet in my mailbox. The first of the campaign.
I read on PB the leaflets work great on bottom of a litter tray.
Morning again. It's now a year, well 375 days to be exact, since I started using Gener8 browser + VPN's to block trackers which are euphemistically called 'cookies' as if to make them sound nice. They're not nice. They're bits of code designed to spy on your every move online and then use YOUR data.
I use Gener8 in private mode and in that time Gener8 has blocked 800.46k of cookies.
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
Lol this has been flagged by two people. Wtf?!!!!! I can only assume these are the usual far right nutjobs. This was a serious post about cookies because I was accused of trolling when I'm only trying to protect my data.
In other news, close friend of mine has voted tory because she always does. I despair at some people.
I suspect these elections are going to be very 'meh'. Only marginally more interesting than the storm in the Starmer teacup. Or is that beer bottle.
As you were.
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Thanks. It isn't a binary issue except for the extremes.
Binary boneheads are the curse of our age.
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
It's the least surprising news of the week that the right-wing press and their allies have chosen to try to spread dirt on Labour in the run-up to local elections. Starmer had better get used to it, because there'll be a lot worse come the next GE. Labour should be reasonably pleased that the attackers are struggling to find much real dirt.
Starmer does need, however, an Alastair Campbell equivalent to help him and others rebut the most egregious stuff that will be bandied about.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Roe vs Wade is a terrible piece of judicial activism
I agree with you that abortion should be available in a controlled and limited fashion (and am troubled by how it has become so common that it is almost an alternative to contraception in some cases)
But it should be implemented through democratic consent, not through torturing the constitution to take it out of the field of debate
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
What on earth do you expect Starmer to do? How do you close down such a story? There is no evidence of wrong doing. If someone comes up with something, fine. I mean when you come up with crap like a £200 curry bill which is completely reasonable for the number of people involved and was legal what are you supposed to do. This is just smears to make Starmer look as bad as Boris and is disgraceful.
And I say that as someone who has never voted Labour because being ethical is more important than winning. Something the Daily Mail has no concept of.
@Big_G_NorthWales just in case it is misinterpreted when I said 'you' above I wasn't referring to you but the the world in general. My usual inability to express myself correctly coming out as an unintended insult.
No problem at all
I have received worse on this subject by some who want it closed down
My dad has just voted Tory. I can’t remember the last time he did in a council election. I asked him why and he said it was because “there was a horrible Lib Dem bloke outside the polling station.”
Ooops. I can remember a very good LD activist/councillor, but it had been commented that the more he canvassed the lower our vote went. I won't explain why, but he definitely put voters off in that short exchange on the door step.
It's the least surprising news of the week that the right-wing press and their allies have chosen to try to spread dirt on Labour in the run-up to local elections. Starmer had better get used to it, because there'll be a lot worse come the next GE. Labour should be reasonably pleased that the attackers are struggling to find much real dirt.
Starmer does need, however, an Alastair Campbell equivalent to help him and others rebut the most egregious stuff that will be bandied about.
I nominate IshmaelZ for the job. But wether that means the person killing the story will become the story I don’t know 😆
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
It is a shame there is no lotoqs in the house of commons, would be wonderful to see someone doing an inverse sks on sks (what does the loto have to say to my constituent who could not be with her husband of 87 years etc)
So BigG. has won you over. Hats off to BigG.
The beauty of BigG. confirming Starmer's guilt makes Johnson de facto innocent.
You are really rather amusing suggesting that allegations that Starmer may have broken covid regulations somehow excuses Boris who cannot be excused and should resign
However, what this has done is compromise Starmer on a subject he has been obsessing about in the HOC demanding resignations daily
Starmer's incident which looks to be at worst on the cusp of not strictly following guidance has been cleverly contorted to undermine him to the point that Johnson's wilful flouting of laws he created for a series of wine, cheese and karaoke parties. I use the term "parties" advisedly, but now they can be downgraded to being no worse than Beergate, and anyway Boris is not really guilty because they were all at it, hammer and tongs.
It is a very clever use of the friendly media, but disconcerting nonetheless. Big Dog is saved!
A more serious point is the laws were ill conceived and unworkable as many found out
If we ever have to lockdown again then far more thought is needed when restricting peoples freedoms
While noting that another pandemic may be different in form, which complicates comparison, yes, of course, we need to learn from what's happened in many ways. There is oodles of research happening right now that's looking at what we did and what happened, across many countries. Unfortunately, some of this is politically sensitive, governments can be reluctant to take a hard look at their own decisions! Much of that research is in public health, but there are legal scholars, for example, looking at how laws were written.
A story that hasn't got much traction is the UK Health Security Agency's budget. In the middle of the pandemic, the UK Govt instituted this hugely disruptive re-organisation of Public Health England. We were told this was to create a world-leading health security body, which became (well behind schedule) UKHSA. Yet, after all the promises, the recent budgetary settlement for UKHSA was disappointing. All talk of "world-leading" seems hollow. The Guardian had a write up at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/26/uk-health-agency-to-cut-40-of-jobs-and-suspend-routine-covid-testing
We can't learn from the COVID-19 pandemic or plan for any future pandemics without adequate resourcing. If we want to be world-leading, we need concomitant funding.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
I doubt they worked after and through us more of a grey area
Turnout in council elections in England seem to average around 35% .
Postal votes tend to be very high averaging over 65% of those who vote .
Postal votes are reported to be down quite significantly this time.
Tories not bothering to vote.
No election where I live, but if there was I'd be struggling to find anyone to vote for.
I've never missed an election as I believe firmly its a civic duty, but I'm glad I don't have an election this year as I couldn't vote for anyone at the minute.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Ukraine. This seems to be a very plausible forecast of Putin's next moves from someone who predicted the invasion back in December (and gave the reasons). Worth a few minutes of your time.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that Putin will not do a full mobilization call on May 9th or anytime in the near future"
VVP has obviously lowered his sights a little since the Gostomel "An Airport Too Far" fiasco and will settle for territorial gains that connects Transnistria to Novorossiya and denies whatever's left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
So significant more than he has grabbed by force of arms.
Starmer does need, however, an Alastair Campbell equivalent to help him and others rebut the most egregious stuff that will be bandied about.
Absolutely
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
Cookies are useful bits of tech that are being misused *by some*.
VPNs themselves are *very* open to problems. Your traffic still goes somewhere - and they can log it, misuse it and do many other malicious sh*t - particularly if they are 'free' ones. *Why* do you trust your VPN so much?
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
It is a shame there is no lotoqs in the house of commons, would be wonderful to see someone doing an inverse sks on sks (what does the loto have to say to my constituent who could not be with her husband of 87 years etc)
So BigG. has won you over. Hats off to BigG.
The beauty of BigG. confirming Starmer's guilt makes Johnson de facto innocent.
You are really rather amusing suggesting that allegations that Starmer may have broken covid regulations somehow excuses Boris who cannot be excused and should resign
However, what this has done is compromise Starmer on a subject he has been obsessing about in the HOC demanding resignations daily
Starmer's incident which looks to be at worst on the cusp of not strictly following guidance has been cleverly contorted to undermine him to the point that Johnson's wilful flouting of laws he created for a series of wine, cheese and karaoke parties. I use the term "parties" advisedly, but now they can be downgraded to being no worse than Beergate, and anyway Boris is not really guilty because they were all at it, hammer and tongs.
It is a very clever use of the friendly media, but disconcerting nonetheless. Big Dog is saved!
A more serious point is the laws were ill conceived and unworkable as many found out
If we ever have to lockdown again then far more thought is needed when restricting peoples freedoms
While noting that another pandemic may be different in form, which complicates comparison, yes, of course, we need to learn from what's happened in many ways. There is oodles of research happening right now that's looking at what we did and what happened, across many countries. Unfortunately, some of this is politically sensitive, governments can be reluctant to take a hard look at their own decisions! Much of that research is in public health, but there are legal scholars, for example, looking at how laws were written.
A story that hasn't got much traction is the UK Health Security Agency's budget. In the middle of the pandemic, the UK Govt instituted this hugely disruptive re-organisation of Public Health England. We were told this was to create a world-leading health security body, which became (well behind schedule) UKHSA. Yet, after all the promises, the recent budgetary settlement for UKHSA was disappointing. All talk of "world-leading" seems hollow. The Guardian had a write up at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/26/uk-health-agency-to-cut-40-of-jobs-and-suspend-routine-covid-testing
We can't learn from the COVID-19 pandemic or plan for any future pandemics without adequate resourcing. If we want to be world-leading, we need concomitant funding.
The Guardian is saying the government should spend more money on something? How shocking!
Morning again. It's now a year, well 375 days to be exact, since I started using Gener8 browser + VPN's to block trackers which are euphemistically called 'cookies' as if to make them sound nice. They're not nice. They're bits of code designed to spy on your every move online and then use YOUR data.
I use Gener8 in private mode and in that time Gener8 has blocked 800.46k of cookies.
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
Lol this has been flagged by two people. Wtf?!!!!! I can only assume these are the usual far right nutjobs. This was a serious post about cookies because I was accused of trolling when I'm only trying to protect my data.
In other news, close friend of mine has voted tory because she always does. I despair at some people.
I suspect these elections are going to be very 'meh'. Only marginally more interesting than the storm in the Starmer teacup. Or is that beer bottle.
As you were.
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
Turnout in council elections in England seem to average around 35% .
Postal votes tend to be very high averaging over 65% of those who vote .
Postal votes are reported to be down quite significantly this time.
Tories not bothering to vote.
No election where I live, but if there was I'd be struggling to find anyone to vote for.
I've never missed an election as I believe firmly its a civic duty, but I'm glad I don't have an election this year as I couldn't vote for anyone at the minute.
That was my instinctive thought. Doesn't seem much enthusiasm for anyone else. LD's will probably do OK on a low turnout. No election for me either. I doubt I'd be sprinting to the polling station if there were.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I've personally encountered some strange thinking on abortion/viability in the UK.
A close relative had a very premature child. I went to see her in the hospital - father was there, mother away. A nurse came in and looked at the chart - new to the patient. She said the number of weeks of gestation must be wrong (It was below the UK abortion limit). The farther was doing something else, so I replied that it was correct.
"She should never have been resuscitated." - the literal response of the nurse, in earshot of the father.
He was trying to control himself. I pointed out that, she hadn't actually been "resuscitated" - just given oxygen etc. The nurse became increasingly flustered and then left the room.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Roe vs Wade is a terrible piece of judicial activism
I agree with you that abortion should be available in a controlled and limited fashion (and am troubled by how it has become so common that it is almost an alternative to contraception in some cases)
But it should be implemented through democratic consent, not through torturing the constitution to take it out of the field of debate
Do we have a reference with the current total qty of seats held by party in the selection up for election?
No elections here. Good job too - the main topic of interest is just how many offences the Deputy Council Leader will come up before the beak on. We are all losing count.
There's the speeding, the "ASDA incident", the (three?) harassment ones - one of which may relate to the blocking of the neighbour's side door with the motor caravan such that the neighbour could not get out of that side of his bungalow, the driving without due care and attention, the obstructing police and the resisting arrest ones, and at that point I start to lose track.
The assaulting a police officer with intent to resist arrest one was dropped.
This is all reported in the press, so is presumably not legally protected information.
Ukraine. This seems to be a very plausible forecast of Putin's next moves from someone who predicted the invasion back in December (and gave the reasons). Worth a few minutes of your time.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that Putin will not do a full mobilization call on May 9th or anytime in the near future"
VVP has obviously lowered his sights a little since the Gostomel "An Airport Too Far" fiasco and will settle for territorial gains that connects Transnistria to Novorossiya and denies whatever's left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
I think that’s about right, but the issue he has now is keeping the ground he has taken. There’s still huge attrition of men and materiel on a daily basis, and the Ukranians aren’t going to stop fighting back any time soon.
The nutbar press in Scotland speaking as one (they seem seem to have been noticeably more reticent over Currygate compared to their southron bros).
Does use of the imperative work, or have the opposite effect? They sound very aggressive, almost shouty in tone to me. A please on the first and Let's on the second would be better. But I'm not their target audience.
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
Ukraine. This seems to be a very plausible forecast of Putin's next moves from someone who predicted the invasion back in December (and gave the reasons). Worth a few minutes of your time.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that Putin will not do a full mobilization call on May 9th or anytime in the near future"
VVP has obviously lowered his sights a little since the Gostomel "An Airport Too Far" fiasco and will settle for territorial gains that connects Transnistria to Novorossiya and denies whatever's left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
I think that’s about right, but the issue he has now is keeping the ground he has taken. There’s still huge attrition of men and materiel on a daily basis, and the Ukranians aren’t going to stop fighting back any time soon.
Nor are the Ukrainians going to stop getting munitions and supplies any time soon either.
Its increasingly hard to see how Russia can even achieve a stalemate now - and the myth of Russia as the great and power bear has been shattered to the rest of the world now too. Putin might be able to put lipstick on a pig to his own citizens, but not to the West.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I've personally encountered some strange thinking on abortion/viability in the UK.
A close relative had a very premature child. I went to see her in the hospital - father was there, mother away. A nurse came in and looked at the chart - new to the patient. She said the number of weeks of gestation must be wrong (It was below the UK abortion limit). The farther was doing something else, so I replied that it was correct.
"She should never have been resuscitated." - the literal response of the nurse, in earshot of the father.
He was trying to control himself. I pointed out that, she hadn't actually been "resuscitated" - just given oxygen etc. The nurse became increasingly flustered and then left the room.
Good point. The abortion rate per capita in the UK, is considerably higher than in the US. It’s just that it’s not really a political issue in the UK.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Roe vs Wade is a terrible piece of judicial activism
I agree with you that abortion should be available in a controlled and limited fashion (and am troubled by how it has become so common that it is almost an alternative to contraception in some cases)
But it should be implemented through democratic consent, not through torturing the constitution to take it out of the field of debate
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
He doesn't have to respond to questions from "investigative" journalists.
He doesn't even have to respond to questions from the Old Bill. He could "No Comment" the whole thing. We've all seen "24 Hours in Police Custody" and know how it works. There are absolutely zero circumstances where co-operating with the police in your interest.
Morning all! Nice sunny day here in Cambridge, and the first time I've been outside since getting Covid 10 days ago.
Walked my daughter to school and saw a grand total of 3 party boards - 2 Labour, and 1 LD. Gone are the days of a sea of Orange Diamonds on the south side of Cambridge City.
I also discovered a Labour party leaflet in my mailbox. The first of the campaign.
We have been canvased so many times by Labour in the last month that it’s reached “actually pissed off now” levels of annoyance.
(The local candidate is the leader of the Labour group & was very nearly toppled by the Greens last time around. Labour appear to have thrown the kitchen sink at retaining the seat, but I feel less might have been more in this particular case.)
The nutbar press in Scotland speaking as one (they seem seem to have been noticeably more reticent over Currygate compared to their southron bros).
Does use of the imperative work, or have the opposite effect? They sound very aggressive, almost shouty in tone to me. A please on the first and Let's on the second would be better. But I'm not their target audience.
Tends to be their default tone except when fawning over royals. I suspect that they're not really trying to persuade undecideds but that their readerships like the aggressive, stick it to the Nats vibe.
If Starmer ends up with a FPN then surely we are looking at resignation and a leadership election?
He said Sunak must resign even though as Chris Smyth writes in the Times, the chancellor only ended up briefly and accidentally at a presentation of birthday cake.
Which could well be seen as the same level as accidentally breaking rules by ordering a curry late in the evening after working.
Who takes over if Starmer has to fall on his sword?
Reeves? Cooper? Or will Balls be in by then?
Yes, Sir Keir will have to go if PC Plod comes knocking. (Might there also be a case for him to be stripped of his knighthood?) But what a mess for the opposition to have gotten itself into should it transpire. Reminds me of all the trouble Michael Howard got into over the invasion of Iraq.
Calling for Sunak to go as well as Boris Industrial Scale Parties Johnson may well turn out to be a massive mistake.
If Starmer ends up with a FPN then surely we are looking at resignation and a leadership election?
He said Sunak must resign even though as Chris Smyth writes in the Times, the chancellor only ended up briefly and accidentally at a presentation of birthday cake.
Which could well be seen as the same level as accidentally breaking rules by ordering a curry late in the evening after working.
Who takes over if Starmer has to fall on his sword?
Reeves? Cooper? Or will Balls be in by then?
If Starmer does get a FPN so will Rayner as she was also present
Oh, good point. Under Lab rules iirc she is automatically interim leader if he resigns. No idea what happens when both resign. I suspect Shadow Home Office minister steps up - so Cooper is interim leader.
Starmer does need, however, an Alastair Campbell equivalent to help him and others rebut the most egregious stuff that will be bandied about.
Absolutely
---------------------- I use a VPN. So should you. ----------------------
Cookies are useful bits of tech that are being misused *by some*.
VPNs themselves are *very* open to problems. Your traffic still goes somewhere - and they can log it, misuse it and do many other malicious sh*t - particularly if they are 'free' ones. *Why* do you trust your VPN so much?
(I didn't flag your post, BTW.)
As I know you know, one of the problems with digital security is that there is a *massive* amount of magical thinking involved. A compromised VPN, or browser, is *way worse* than just connecting through your provider and well-tested, widely used, popular software from one of the big (and highly security conscious) vendors.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
I doubt much meaningful work happened after a late curry and beer after day travelling about in constituency, but we can never know for sure, it’s unprovable. He was asked, did you work this inline with guidelines and he said yes. What other questions are there Big G?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I've personally encountered some strange thinking on abortion/viability in the UK.
A close relative had a very premature child. I went to see her in the hospital - father was there, mother away. A nurse came in and looked at the chart - new to the patient. She said the number of weeks of gestation must be wrong (It was below the UK abortion limit). The farther was doing something else, so I replied that it was correct.
"She should never have been resuscitated." - the literal response of the nurse, in earshot of the father.
He was trying to control himself. I pointed out that, she hadn't actually been "resuscitated" - just given oxygen etc. The nurse became increasingly flustered and then left the room.
Good point. The abortion rate per capita in the UK, is considerably higher than in the US. It’s just that it’s not really a political issue in the UK.
Indeed so - pretty much everyone just accepts that we have de facto but not de jure abortion on demand within the time limit, the only arguments we ever have are about what the time limit should be.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
For the Yanks, this is perhaps an opportunity to put it in national law rather than a Court ruling.
Ukraine. This seems to be a very plausible forecast of Putin's next moves from someone who predicted the invasion back in December (and gave the reasons). Worth a few minutes of your time.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that Putin will not do a full mobilization call on May 9th or anytime in the near future"
VVP has obviously lowered his sights a little since the Gostomel "An Airport Too Far" fiasco and will settle for territorial gains that connects Transnistria to Novorossiya and denies whatever's left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
I think that’s about right, but the issue he has now is keeping the ground he has taken. There’s still huge attrition of men and materiel on a daily basis, and the Ukranians aren’t going to stop fighting back any time soon.
The Ukrainians have made quite a few gains around Kharkiv recently and this has reportedly reduced the rate of shelling of the city.
I suppose a risk is that if Russia declares a ceasefire, the West will split between those who support Ukrainian attempts to regain lost territory, and those who will want to believe that is the end of it, the Ukrainians should accept the loss of territory, and everyone can simply forget about it again.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I've personally encountered some strange thinking on abortion/viability in the UK.
A close relative had a very premature child. I went to see her in the hospital - father was there, mother away. A nurse came in and looked at the chart - new to the patient. She said the number of weeks of gestation must be wrong (It was below the UK abortion limit). The farther was doing something else, so I replied that it was correct.
"She should never have been resuscitated." - the literal response of the nurse, in earshot of the father.
He was trying to control himself. I pointed out that, she hadn't actually been "resuscitated" - just given oxygen etc. The nurse became increasingly flustered and then left the room.
Good point. The abortion rate per capita in the UK, is considerably higher than in the US. It’s just that it’s not really a political issue in the UK.
That's not my point. Just the dogmatic thinking to the point of rejecting reality is here to.
A rational person would say
- We have a policy on abortion that defines a relatively late cut off point. - Medical science is improving all the time. - Therefore there will be a small number of children born & viable before the limit. - Is this a problem?
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Good point , I thought most thought Starmer was dull and not really a party man !
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Roe vs Wade is a terrible piece of judicial activism
I agree with you that abortion should be available in a controlled and limited fashion (and am troubled by how it has become so common that it is almost an alternative to contraception in some cases)
But it should be implemented through democratic consent, not through torturing the constitution to take it out of the field of debate
I don’t know the US, but in the UK numbers are way above what was originally anticipated when the legislation was passed
Anticipated by whom? The numbers are not way above what my dad anticipated, and he was the lead medical advisor to David Steel on the bill.
The vast majority of abortions are early abortions. There are some difficult issues around late abortions, as has been raised in this thread, but these are rare cases. Most people -- leaving aside the extremists in the US Republican Party -- have few concerns about early abortions.
If you want to see the abortion rate go lower, we know how to achieve that. Good sex education in schools and better access to contraception. These are good things we should be doing anyway.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
I doubt much meaningful work happened after a late curry and beer after day travelling about in constituency, but we can never know for sure, it’s unprovable. He was asked, did you work this inline with guidelines and he said yes. What other questions are there Big G?
So you appreciate why the police won’t touch it?
The police didn't touch the Downing Street gatherings initially, either - they eventually caved in to severe political and media pressure.
Ukraine. This seems to be a very plausible forecast of Putin's next moves from someone who predicted the invasion back in December (and gave the reasons). Worth a few minutes of your time.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that Putin will not do a full mobilization call on May 9th or anytime in the near future"
VVP has obviously lowered his sights a little since the Gostomel "An Airport Too Far" fiasco and will settle for territorial gains that connects Transnistria to Novorossiya and denies whatever's left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
I think that’s about right, but the issue he has now is keeping the ground he has taken. There’s still huge attrition of men and materiel on a daily basis, and the Ukranians aren’t going to stop fighting back any time soon.
The Ukrainians have made quite a few gains around Kharkiv recently and this has reportedly reduced the rate of shelling of the city.
I suppose a risk is that if Russia declares a ceasefire, the West will split between those who support Ukrainian attempts to regain lost territory, and those who will want to believe that is the end of it, the Ukrainians should accept the loss of territory, and everyone can simply forget about it again.
The question is - how does it look to Putin?
Does he think he is losing?
Or is he still in the "victory next week" mode?
Will he try declaring victory and declaring a halt (but actually continuing with the light recreational war crimes etc), in the hope that arms deliveries to Ukraine will stop?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
For the Yanks, this is perhaps an opportunity to put it in national law rather than a Court ruling.
Which is where it always should have been anyway, and there have been plenty of opportunities since Roe v Wade when there was a Democrat-controlled Congress and presidency that they could have done it.
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
The nutbar press in Scotland speaking as one (they seem seem to have been noticeably more reticent over Currygate compared to their southron bros).
Does use of the imperative work, or have the opposite effect? They sound very aggressive, almost shouty in tone to me. A please on the first and Let's on the second would be better. But I'm not their target audience.
Tends to be their default tone except when fawning over royals. I suspect that they're not really trying to persuade undecideds but that their readerships like the aggressive, stick it to the Nats vibe.
No, it's the same thing - their readership is used to being ordered about by their betters, lying down in the mud to cringe and grovel to the royals/aristos/OEs etc.
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
No I won't.
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
It's the least surprising news of the week that the right-wing press and their allies have chosen to try to spread dirt on Labour in the run-up to local elections. Starmer had better get used to it, because there'll be a lot worse come the next GE.
.
I reckon by GE2024 Tories and RW Press will be at "Asian Grooming Gang enabler" levels if they are behind.
If Starmer ends up with a FPN then surely we are looking at resignation and a leadership election?
He said Sunak must resign even though as Chris Smyth writes in the Times, the chancellor only ended up briefly and accidentally at a presentation of birthday cake.
Which could well be seen as the same level as accidentally breaking rules by ordering a curry late in the evening after working.
Who takes over if Starmer has to fall on his sword?
Reeves? Cooper? Or will Balls be in by then?
If Starmer does get a FPN so will Rayner as she was also present
If they do, yes, they both must go. I would be highly surprised if they do get FPNs though.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
An interesting point, recently, was the issue of abortions because of the sex of the child.
Some medics were taking the position that since such demands for not having a girl were often from close family, that the pressure on the mother was such that they didn't think it in her best interest to deny the abortion.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
He doesn't have to respond to questions from "investigative" journalists.
He doesn't even have to respond to questions from the Old Bill. He could "No Comment" the whole thing. We've all seen "24 Hours in Police Custody" and know how it works. There are absolutely zero circumstances where co-operating with the police in your interest.
Big G would absolutely love to see SKS do that..
... Interrogator BigG from the Selfappointed Political Police: And why did you buy a field for the donkey?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: Was it because you were having an affair with him?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: You've provided no evidence that you are innocent. Guilty!!
If Starmer ends up with a FPN then surely we are looking at resignation and a leadership election?
He said Sunak must resign even though as Chris Smyth writes in the Times, the chancellor only ended up briefly and accidentally at a presentation of birthday cake.
Which could well be seen as the same level as accidentally breaking rules by ordering a curry late in the evening after working.
Who takes over if Starmer has to fall on his sword?
Reeves? Cooper? Or will Balls be in by then?
If Starmer does get a FPN so will Rayner as she was also present
If they do, yes, they both must go. I would be highly surprised if they do get FPNs though.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
If postal votes are down on previous elections this would be bad news for the Tories .
It's the Tories who are reporting this. May be expectation management, mind.
From Guardian.
"Tory peer and elections expert Robert Hayward said postal vote returns were down “quite markedly” compared with 2018. He added: “My expectation is therefore that turnout will be hard pushed to reach 30% in 2022.""
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
If Starmer ends up with a FPN then surely we are looking at resignation and a leadership election?
He said Sunak must resign even though as Chris Smyth writes in the Times, the chancellor only ended up briefly and accidentally at a presentation of birthday cake.
Which could well be seen as the same level as accidentally breaking rules by ordering a curry late in the evening after working.
Who takes over if Starmer has to fall on his sword?
Reeves? Cooper? Or will Balls be in by then?
Yes, Sir Keir will have to go if PC Plod comes knocking. (Might there also be a case for him to be stripped of his knighthood?) But what a mess for the opposition to have gotten itself into should it transpire. Reminds me of all the trouble Michael Howard got into over the invasion of Iraq.
Calling for Sunak to go as well as Boris Industrial Scale Parties Johnson may well turn out to be a massive mistake.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
It is a shame there is no lotoqs in the house of commons, would be wonderful to see someone doing an inverse sks on sks (what does the loto have to say to my constituent who could not be with her husband of 87 years etc)
So BigG. has won you over. Hats off to BigG.
The beauty of BigG. confirming Starmer's guilt makes Johnson de facto innocent.
You are really rather amusing suggesting that allegations that Starmer may have broken covid regulations somehow excuses Boris who cannot be excused and should resign
However, what this has done is compromise Starmer on a subject he has been obsessing about in the HOC demanding resignations daily
Starmer's incident which looks to be at worst on the cusp of not strictly following guidance has been cleverly contorted to undermine him to the point that Johnson's wilful flouting of laws he created for a series of wine, cheese and karaoke parties. I use the term "parties" advisedly, but now they can be downgraded to being no worse than Beergate, and anyway Boris is not really guilty because they were all at it, hammer and tongs.
It is a very clever use of the friendly media, but disconcerting nonetheless. Big Dog is saved!
A more serious point is the laws were ill conceived and unworkable as many found out
If we ever have to lockdown again then far more thought is needed when restricting peoples freedoms
While noting that another pandemic may be different in form, which complicates comparison, yes, of course, we need to learn from what's happened in many ways. There is oodles of research happening right now that's looking at what we did and what happened, across many countries. Unfortunately, some of this is politically sensitive, governments can be reluctant to take a hard look at their own decisions! Much of that research is in public health, but there are legal scholars, for example, looking at how laws were written.
A story that hasn't got much traction is the UK Health Security Agency's budget. In the middle of the pandemic, the UK Govt instituted this hugely disruptive re-organisation of Public Health England. We were told this was to create a world-leading health security body, which became (well behind schedule) UKHSA. Yet, after all the promises, the recent budgetary settlement for UKHSA was disappointing. All talk of "world-leading" seems hollow. The Guardian had a write up at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/26/uk-health-agency-to-cut-40-of-jobs-and-suspend-routine-covid-testing
We can't learn from the COVID-19 pandemic or plan for any future pandemics without adequate resourcing. If we want to be world-leading, we need concomitant funding.
The Guardian is saying the government should spend more money on something? How shocking!
There are some things we definitely need to spend more moneyt on (and waste less money on diversions to chums). This is one.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
He doesn't have to respond to questions from "investigative" journalists.
He doesn't even have to respond to questions from the Old Bill. He could "No Comment" the whole thing. We've all seen "24 Hours in Police Custody" and know how it works. There are absolutely zero circumstances where co-operating with the police in your interest.
Big G would absolutely love to see SKS do that..
... Interrogator BigG from the Selfappointed Political Police: And why did you buy a field for the donkey?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: Was it because you were having an affair with him?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: You've provided no evidence that you are innocent. Guilty!!
(His "offence" was to put on his blog advice on no-commenting interviews with the police. For which a police connected Times reporter hacked his accounts illegally, to unmask him)
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
If postal votes are down on previous elections this would be bad news for the Tories .
It's the Tories who are reporting this. May be expectation management, mind.
From Guardian.
"Tory peer and elections expert Robert Hayward said postal vote returns were down “quite markedly” compared with 2018. He added: “My expectation is therefore that turnout will be hard pushed to reach 30% in 2022.""
If turnout is down in both postal and on the day voting the Tories might just do badly . If the big drop is only in postal votes then they’re going to have a very bad day .
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
I'm not sure why it's necessary to dance about and attempt to win the debate without having the debate by defining all other views as extreme.
My conclusion is the same as yours - a woman should have full control of her body and so decide on abortion at all times.
Logically this allows for very late abortions, but in practice these are very rare, and for tragically necessary reasons. I think we can trust women, with the advice of medical professionals, to make the choices in these situations without burdening them with worries over the letter of the law.
Morning all! Nice sunny day here in Cambridge, and the first time I've been outside since getting Covid 10 days ago.
Walked my daughter to school and saw a grand total of 3 party boards - 2 Labour, and 1 LD. Gone are the days of a sea of Orange Diamonds on the south side of Cambridge City.
I also discovered a Labour party leaflet in my mailbox. The first of the campaign.
In recent days, we've found a dead pigeon in the garden (sparrowhawk), ditto hedgehog (fox, I think), and seen a fox a few doors away, and in the nearbyu woods fallow deer and a dead badger on our walks (the latter reported to the local badger person for their ongoing monitoring programme - I think it was chipped or something, buit anyway they could identify the individual).
Posters visible: absolutely none. Though about 4-5 leaflets.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
I doubt much meaningful work happened after a late curry and beer after day travelling about in constituency, but we can never know for sure, it’s unprovable. He was asked, did you work this inline with guidelines and he said yes. What other questions are there Big G?
So you appreciate why the police won’t touch it?
The police didn't touch the Downing Street gatherings initially, either - they eventually caved in to severe political and media pressure.
Yeah, but the fundamental difference is the rules were different at the time, so any sort of party when Tories partied was an open and shut case as law breaking for police to investigate. Perhaps should have stuck to “no FPN after this amount of time” rule, I wouldn’t have minded if they had, they for sure agonised over this at senior levels, but the police was forced into it by one simple thing, being aware of it at the time so would have got blame for not acting at the time (as they would have done a student or private party). To answer your question, honestly that’s why MET eventually changed position.
When the rules are now different so you can share a meal if it’s a working supper with work afterwards, not only is it not open and shut it’s actually a complete waste of police time to go there. What exactly are they supposed to investigate, the level of actual work going on during and afterwards? 😆This is what has been so laugh out loud lame everyday the mail pushed it joined by Tory ministers.
The mistake you and others making here, as you just done, is is too quick to reference and relate to Partygate, that was under a completely different set of rules.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
He doesn't have to respond to questions from "investigative" journalists.
He doesn't even have to respond to questions from the Old Bill. He could "No Comment" the whole thing. We've all seen "24 Hours in Police Custody" and know how it works. There are absolutely zero circumstances where co-operating with the police in your interest.
Big G would absolutely love to see SKS do that..
... Interrogator BigG from the Selfappointed Political Police: And why did you buy a field for the donkey?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: Was it because you were having an affair with him?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: You've provided no evidence that you are innocent. Guilty!!
(His "offence" was to put on his blog advice on no-commenting interviews with the police. For which a police connected Times reporter hacked his accounts illegally, to unmask him)
Entirely off topic I follow a guy on FB who is a custodian/restorer at Moscow transport museum & also seems involved in a lot of tank & military resto work. He posts quite often in English but I suspect uses Google translate so some of it comes out strangely, however I get the impression that he's not entirely on board with the special military operation. There's quite a big build up to to the May 9th parade with rehearsals and everything going on. He posted this pic yesterday, can any of the more avid Ukraine war watchers say if it has any subversive intent?
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
No I won't.
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.
A lot of people have said stupid things. I'm sure even we have occasionally said stupid things. I am not here to defend everything ever said. I think digging out the most stupid comments made in the past would be a distraction. What we heard about happening at 10 Downing Street was not just a piece of cake or a beer. Let me quote from the Telegraph on 21 Jan 2022:
"Downing Street staff partied until 1am in a seven-hour drinking session the night before Prince Philip's funeral, The Telegraph can reveal, as new claims emerged.
"People were served wine and spirits with mixers in plastic disposable cups, with alcohol at one point getting spilled on an office printer, according to an eyewitness.
"A photograph seen by this newspaper shows No 10 staff-some with drinks-gathered in the Downing Street basement, backing up accounts published earlier this month.
"Text messages seen by The Telegraph also indicate that attendees were still partying at the centre of Government at 1am, having started at around 6pm."
There are 12 "partygate" events under police investigation, with >100 questionnaires 'under caution'. That's what people have been upset about.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
No I won't.
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.
A lot of people have said stupid things. I'm sure even we have occasionally said stupid things. I am not here to defend everything ever said. I think digging out the most stupid comments made in the past would be a distraction. What we heard about happening at 10 Downing Street was not just a piece of cake or a beer. Let me quote from the Telegraph on 21 Jan 2022:
"Downing Street staff partied until 1am in a seven-hour drinking session the night before Prince Philip's funeral, The Telegraph can reveal, as new claims emerged.
"People were served wine and spirits with mixers in plastic disposable cups, with alcohol at one point getting spilled on an office printer, according to an eyewitness.
"A photograph seen by this newspaper shows No 10 staff-some with drinks-gathered in the Downing Street basement, backing up accounts published earlier this month.
"Text messages seen by The Telegraph also indicate that attendees were still partying at the centre of Government at 1am, having started at around 6pm."
There are 12 "partygate" events under police investigation, with >100 questionnaires 'under caution'. That's what people have been upset about.
Which is closer to drinking until 1am: Drinking at 10pm (and maybe later), or not drinking at all and having food at work at 1pm?
I don't see much of a difference between Keir drinking at 10pm and Boris's staff (not Boris who wasn't even at that location) drinking at 1am. Three hours later isn't that much of a difference, and Keir himself was at the 10pm drinking session.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
I doubt much meaningful work happened after a late curry and beer after day travelling about in constituency, but we can never know for sure, it’s unprovable. He was asked, did you work this inline with guidelines and he said yes. What other questions are there Big G?
So you appreciate why the police won’t touch it?
The police didn't touch the Downing Street gatherings initially, either - they eventually caved in to severe political and media pressure.
Yeah, but the fundamental difference is the rules were different at the time, so any sort of party when Tories partied was an open and shut case as law breaking for police to investigate. Perhaps should have stuck to “no FPN after this amount of time” rule, I wouldn’t have minded if they had, they for sure agonised over this at senior levels, but the police was forced into it by one simple thing, being aware of it at the time so would have got blame for not acting at the time (as they would have done a student or private party). To answer your question, honestly that’s why MET eventually changed position.
When the rules are now different so you can share a meal if it’s a working supper with work afterwards, not only is it not open and shut it’s actually a complete waste of police time to go there. What exactly are they supposed to investigate, the level of actual work going on during and afterwards? 😆This is what has been so laugh out loud lame everyday the mail pushed it joined by Tory ministers.
The mistake you and others making here, as you just done, is is too quick to reference and relate to Partygate, that was under a completely different set of rules.
As may be. I'm not making any judgements about any cases - merely pointing out that because the police caved in to political and media pressure in the one case that it's quite understandable that there is political and media pressure to try to make them cave in on the other case.
My guess is that Durham police have a statement ready to go at 10pm tonight or 9am tomorrow morning explaining why SKS didn't technically breach the regulations.
Entirely off topic I follow a guy on FB who is a custodian/restorer at Moscow transport museum & also seems involved in a lot of tank & military resto work. He posts quite often in English but I suspect uses Google translate so some of it comes out strangely, however I get the impression that he's not entirely on board with the special military operation. There's quite a big build up to to the May 9th parade with rehearsals and everything going on. He posted this pic yesterday, can any of the more avid Ukraine war watchers say if it has any subversive intent?
The tank in the background looks like a T14 Armata - the latest and greatest from Russia. It hasn't been used in Ukraine, because of... reasons.
Some say that it doesn't actually work - it is a sort of rolling mockup. Others that it can't be produced in any number.
Is he suggesting an equivalence between the T14 and a magic pony?
Ukraine. This seems to be a very plausible forecast of Putin's next moves from someone who predicted the invasion back in December (and gave the reasons). Worth a few minutes of your time.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction that Putin will not do a full mobilization call on May 9th or anytime in the near future"
VVP has obviously lowered his sights a little since the Gostomel "An Airport Too Far" fiasco and will settle for territorial gains that connects Transnistria to Novorossiya and denies whatever's left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
I think that’s about right, but the issue he has now is keeping the ground he has taken. There’s still huge attrition of men and materiel on a daily basis, and the Ukranians aren’t going to stop fighting back any time soon.
The Ukrainians have made quite a few gains around Kharkiv recently and this has reportedly reduced the rate of shelling of the city.
I suppose a risk is that if Russia declares a ceasefire, the West will split between those who support Ukrainian attempts to regain lost territory, and those who will want to believe that is the end of it, the Ukrainians should accept the loss of territory, and everyone can simply forget about it again.
The question is - how does it look to Putin?
Does he think he is losing?
Or is he still in the "victory next week" mode?
Will he try declaring victory and declaring a halt (but actually continuing with the light recreational war crimes etc), in the hope that arms deliveries to Ukraine will stop?
One explanation for the decision to invade was that Putin felt he had to do something to change Ukraine's trajectory, or face inevitable strategic defeat.
He would only accept this defeat if that were necessary to prevent a greater threat to his power. People have underestimated the resilience and popularity of the regime, so he may feel secure enough to raise the stakes again - but an attempt to split the West is quite possible. The retreat from the North was presented in part as a confidence-building measure for negotiations.
I think he is reasonably aware of how the army is faring, and the retreat from the North is evidence of that, as are the house arrests and the change in command appointments.
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
No I won't.
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.
A lot of people have said stupid things. I'm sure even we have occasionally said stupid things. I am not here to defend everything ever said. I think digging out the most stupid comments made in the past would be a distraction. What we heard about happening at 10 Downing Street was not just a piece of cake or a beer. Let me quote from the Telegraph on 21 Jan 2022:
"Downing Street staff partied until 1am in a seven-hour drinking session the night before Prince Philip's funeral, The Telegraph can reveal, as new claims emerged.
"People were served wine and spirits with mixers in plastic disposable cups, with alcohol at one point getting spilled on an office printer, according to an eyewitness.
"A photograph seen by this newspaper shows No 10 staff-some with drinks-gathered in the Downing Street basement, backing up accounts published earlier this month.
"Text messages seen by The Telegraph also indicate that attendees were still partying at the centre of Government at 1am, having started at around 6pm."
There are 12 "partygate" events under police investigation, with >100 questionnaires 'under caution'. That's what people have been upset about.
Which is closer to drinking until 1am: Drinking at 10pm (and maybe later), or not drinking at all and having food at work at 1pm?
I don't see much of a difference between Keir drinking at 10pm and Boris's staff (not Boris who wasn't even at that location) drinking at 1am. Three hours later isn't that much of a difference, and Keir himself was at the 10pm drinking session.
Number 10 staff were involved in a "seven-hour drinking session", according to the Telegraph. Seven hours. Starmer and team had a drink with some food. These things do not seem similar to me.
Another quote from the same article: "Another new claim is that some attendees went down the child slide belonging to Wilf Johnson, Boris Johnson's son. It has previously been reported that Wilf's swing was broken that night."
Did Starmer and team break any children's garden furniture in their revelries?
Entirely off topic I follow a guy on FB who is a custodian/restorer at Moscow transport museum & also seems involved in a lot of tank & military resto work. He posts quite often in English but I suspect uses Google translate so some of it comes out strangely, however I get the impression that he's not entirely on board with the special military operation. There's quite a big build up to to the May 9th parade with rehearsals and everything going on. He posted this pic yesterday, can any of the more avid Ukraine war watchers say if it has any subversive intent?
LOL, that they have a bunch of new tanks preparing for a Moscow parade, when they are losing a dozen a day in the theatre. Says everything you need to know about the Russian priorities.
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
No I won't.
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.
A lot of people have said stupid things. I'm sure even we have occasionally said stupid things. I am not here to defend everything ever said. I think digging out the most stupid comments made in the past would be a distraction. What we heard about happening at 10 Downing Street was not just a piece of cake or a beer. Let me quote from the Telegraph on 21 Jan 2022:
"Downing Street staff partied until 1am in a seven-hour drinking session the night before Prince Philip's funeral, The Telegraph can reveal, as new claims emerged.
"People were served wine and spirits with mixers in plastic disposable cups, with alcohol at one point getting spilled on an office printer, according to an eyewitness.
"A photograph seen by this newspaper shows No 10 staff-some with drinks-gathered in the Downing Street basement, backing up accounts published earlier this month.
"Text messages seen by The Telegraph also indicate that attendees were still partying at the centre of Government at 1am, having started at around 6pm."
There are 12 "partygate" events under police investigation, with >100 questionnaires 'under caution'. That's what people have been upset about.
This is one of the ones that there's no suggestion that any politican attended or even was aware of, isn't it?
If postal votes are down on previous elections this would be bad news for the Tories .
It's the Tories who are reporting this. May be expectation management, mind.
From Guardian.
"Tory peer and elections expert Robert Hayward said postal vote returns were down “quite markedly” compared with 2018. He added: “My expectation is therefore that turnout will be hard pushed to reach 30% in 2022.""
If turnout is down in both postal and on the day voting the Tories might just do badly . If the big drop is only in postal votes then they’re going to have a very bad day .
I disagree. It will be a bad day from not getting vote out. But pointing to a 1992 GE as possible in two years.
If it’s higher turn out from last time and lots of Tory losses, it’s pointing to Tory voters voting (mid term admitted) for rival party, making 1992 GE less likely in two years time, more of a clear signal of abandoning Boris.
The only question worth answering the next few days from the mountain of real votes is are those who gave Boris big majority actually deserting him, or just disgruntled this mid term May. Isn’t it?
Wiping out landslide majorities at one attempt is historically rare, it will need a rare huge loss of faith over just a few years.
It is well known to advertisers that Publicity disproportionately affects the market leader both positively and negatively. In this instance the market leader would seem to be 'Partygate'. If 'Beergate' reminds the public of the iconic images of 'Partygate' then it will prove to be ill advised
Another fact well known to advertisers is that opinions are formed over time and persuading people to change their opinions is very difficult indeed.
Do people think Starmer is a liar and a good time Charlie?
Do They think Johnson is?
Do people think politicians are all as bad as each other?
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy because the problem was never food and alcohol being consumed. That's not why Boris, Carrie, Rishi and tens of others have gotten FPNs. The problem were non-work gatherings and out-and-out parties.
And all the people at Downing Street where all there for work because they work there, apart from the people who are there because they live there.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
The Cabinet Office do not meet in the Johnsons' living room. Carrie Johnson lives in a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. She had no reason acceptable under the COVID rules to be going to do a work meeting in the offices of 10 Downing Street. At least, that appears to be the reasoning of the police, which Boris, Carrie and Rishi have all accepted. So, for the last time, can you drop this "Carrie lives there" defence?
No I won't.
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.
A lot of people have said stupid things. I'm sure even we have occasionally said stupid things. I am not here to defend everything ever said. I think digging out the most stupid comments made in the past would be a distraction. What we heard about happening at 10 Downing Street was not just a piece of cake or a beer. Let me quote from the Telegraph on 21 Jan 2022:
"Downing Street staff partied until 1am in a seven-hour drinking session the night before Prince Philip's funeral, The Telegraph can reveal, as new claims emerged.
"People were served wine and spirits with mixers in plastic disposable cups, with alcohol at one point getting spilled on an office printer, according to an eyewitness.
"A photograph seen by this newspaper shows No 10 staff-some with drinks-gathered in the Downing Street basement, backing up accounts published earlier this month.
"Text messages seen by The Telegraph also indicate that attendees were still partying at the centre of Government at 1am, having started at around 6pm."
There are 12 "partygate" events under police investigation, with >100 questionnaires 'under caution'. That's what people have been upset about.
Which is closer to drinking until 1am: Drinking at 10pm (and maybe later), or not drinking at all and having food at work at 1pm?
I don't see much of a difference between Keir drinking at 10pm and Boris's staff (not Boris who wasn't even at that location) drinking at 1am. Three hours later isn't that much of a difference, and Keir himself was at the 10pm drinking session.
"And Keir himself was at the 10pm drinking session," a beautifully crafted statement Lynton!
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
Entirely off topic I follow a guy on FB who is a custodian/restorer at Moscow transport museum & also seems involved in a lot of tank & military resto work. He posts quite often in English but I suspect uses Google translate so some of it comes out strangely, however I get the impression that he's not entirely on board with the special military operation. There's quite a big build up to to the May 9th parade with rehearsals and everything going on. He posted this pic yesterday, can any of the more avid Ukraine war watchers say if it has any subversive intent?
LOL, that they have a bunch of new tanks preparing for a Moscow parade, when they are losing a dozen a day in the theatre. Says everything you need to know about the Russian priorities.
Well, it is a T14 (I think). Given that they have never actually been deployed anywhere and achieved a breakdown at a previous Moscow parade.... Metaphor for the bullshit that is Putin & Co?
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 1h The film maker [of the Starmer video] added: “It was pretty outrageous because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
The @Telegraph has established that the person who made the video recording of Sir Keir has not been questioned by detectives or asked to hand over the original recording.
The individual who made the film said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet.”
Its been "investigated" claims Rochdale who spent months banging on about Boris being photographed with beer in hand.
The *stills* from the video have been in the media since the event itself. I'm not a copper, but if someone says "I wish to complain about the party that Starmer had" and image of said party are in the newspapers, and the images don't show an offence being committed, then what do you want them to do?
We're going to keep going round the same loop forever. Another day, another AMAZING REVELATION of some non-detail we supposedly didn't know about which makes sod all difference to the legal case.
Come on Tories. Demand to know if the £200 for the curry was properly declared on the election return. You can still prove Boris innocent if you try hard enough.
In what way was fifteen to thirty (accounts vary) people being in the same office at all necessary for a by-election campaign in a different constituency?
I really do not want to labour this but the police are accused of not viewing the available video, Starmer admits 30 were in attendance, the £200 is about the cost of curries for 30, and it appears an on line quiz was involved
I have received a lot of criticism for posting about this story from those wanting it to be not so, but it appears this is story that has a momentum of its own across the media involving journalists sensing a story, including journalists (Kay Burley and others) who are not HMG friendly
Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester has said today that Durham Police should reconsider a probe into the allegations
When you say the police are accused of not viewing the available video, do you mean they are accused of not viewing the last 10 seconds of the video that were not posted to social media?
This is the quote from the student present who filmed his video
It is unclear which version the police have viewed. The version published on social media lasts for 34 seconds, while the original version is 10 seconds longer at 44 seconds.
The individual who made the film in Durham at 10.04pm on April 30 last year told The Telegraph that they had not been asked to provide a copy to police, nor been interviewed by officers. The film-maker said: "I have not had any contact [from the police] yet."
Asked why they had made the film, they said: "I thought it was pretty outrageous, because at the time we were not allowed to have our friends over and everything was shut down, feeling very isolated.
"It was a kick in the teeth that they were having a bit of a jolly inside. So I thought I would film it."
Are you outraged that Johnson has not received a questionnaire for the Lee Cain "work event" that he attended whilst others attending have? No, I thought not.
Boris has received a FPN and I have repeatedly called for him to go
Starmer has questions to answer and to be honest has only himself to blame by not closing the story down long ago whereas now he looks evasive
Simple question for you to answer Big G - do you think they worked through the meeting and continued to work afterwards? If they did, they are completely in the clear on the law at the time.
Wether they did or didn’t work afterwards is completely unprovable is why police won’t touch it.
That’s the key difference between restrictions at time different compared to the Partying on the Downing Street estate.
You said “ Starmer has questions to answer”. Well he doesn’t, he never had in any of this campaign mud slinging. That’s why people are laughing at you when you say he has.
The questions Starmer has to answer are being posed by investigative journalists who doubt various aspects of this gathering and Durham Police have yet to respond to Richard Holden's letter
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
I doubt much meaningful work happened after a late curry and beer after day travelling about in constituency, but we can never know for sure, it’s unprovable. He was asked, did you work this inline with guidelines and he said yes. What other questions are there Big G?
So you appreciate why the police won’t touch it?
The police didn't touch the Downing Street gatherings initially, either - they eventually caved in to severe political and media pressure.
Yeah, but the fundamental difference is the rules were different at the time, so any sort of party when Tories partied was an open and shut case as law breaking for police to investigate. Perhaps should have stuck to “no FPN after this amount of time” rule, I wouldn’t have minded if they had, they for sure agonised over this at senior levels, but the police was forced into it by one simple thing, being aware of it at the time so would have got blame for not acting at the time (as they would have done a student or private party). To answer your question, honestly that’s why MET eventually changed position.
When the rules are now different so you can share a meal if it’s a working supper with work afterwards, not only is it not open and shut it’s actually a complete waste of police time to go there. What exactly are they supposed to investigate, the level of actual work going on during and afterwards? 😆This is what has been so laugh out loud lame everyday the mail pushed it joined by Tory ministers.
The mistake you and others making here, as you just done, is is too quick to reference and relate to Partygate, that was under a completely different set of rules.
I dont think the rules in June 2020 and April 2021 were much different. In fact the Birthday event for which he received a FPN took place just 3 days before BJ annouced huge reductions on the restrictions
Kind of on topic, just voted as I'm WFH. It was quiet in SE14 but I guess mid-morning isn't peak voting time. I love voting. Vote Labour!
Labour won 100% of the seats in Lewisham in 2018. Maybe the Greens will win a few seats this time.
Might be good, I don't think one party rule is that great in general. Unfortunately I still voted Labour - I know and like our ward councillors and the Mayor is a good guy too. I did vote Green as my second choice for Mayor.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
I don't think that any woman is going to get pregnant, carry a baby all the way to term, just so that they can abort the foetus and offend your sensibilities.
It would only ever occur in very rare and tragic circumstances, that would only be made more tragic by making abortion illegal in those situations.
Comments
In other news, close friend of mine has voted tory because she always does. I despair at some people.
I suspect these elections are going to be very 'meh'. Only marginally more interesting than the storm in the Starmer teacup. Or is that beer bottle.
As you were.
----------------------
I use a VPN. So should you.
----------------------
----------------------
I use a VPN. So should you.
----------------------
Starmer does need, however, an Alastair Campbell equivalent to help him and others rebut the most egregious stuff that will be bandied about.
I agree with you that abortion should be available in a controlled and limited fashion (and am troubled by how it has become so common that it is almost an alternative to contraception in some cases)
But it should be implemented through democratic consent, not through torturing the constitution to take it out of the field of debate
----------------------
I use a VPN. So should you.
----------------------
This feeds into a pre-existing "they're all as bad as each other" narrative, while having the added benefit of being 100% true.
The irony of having lefties insist "nothing to see here" about food and alcohol being consumed at a place people had been working, after spending months making a mountain out of food and alcohol being consumed at a place of work, is delicious. Pure hypocrisy.
I have received worse on this subject by some who want it closed down
Postal votes tend to be very high averaging over 65% of those who vote .
But wether that means the person killing the story will become the story I don’t know 😆
Edit: In numerical terms. We obviously don't know yet about percentage wise.
A story that hasn't got much traction is the UK Health Security Agency's budget. In the middle of the pandemic, the UK Govt instituted this hugely disruptive re-organisation of Public Health England. We were told this was to create a world-leading health security body, which became (well behind schedule) UKHSA. Yet, after all the promises, the recent budgetary settlement for UKHSA was disappointing. All talk of "world-leading" seems hollow. The Guardian had a write up at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/26/uk-health-agency-to-cut-40-of-jobs-and-suspend-routine-covid-testing
We can't learn from the COVID-19 pandemic or plan for any future pandemics without adequate resourcing. If we want to be world-leading, we need concomitant funding.
No election where I live, but if there was I'd be struggling to find anyone to vote for.
I've never missed an election as I believe firmly its a civic duty, but I'm glad I don't have an election this year as I couldn't vote for anyone at the minute.
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Why would Ukraine do that deal?
VPNs themselves are *very* open to problems. Your traffic still goes somewhere - and they can log it, misuse it and do many other malicious sh*t - particularly if they are 'free' ones. *Why* do you trust your VPN so much?
(I didn't flag your post, BTW.)
LD's will probably do OK on a low turnout.
No election for me either. I doubt I'd be sprinting to the polling station if there were.
A close relative had a very premature child. I went to see her in the hospital - father was there, mother away. A nurse came in and looked at the chart - new to the patient. She said the number of weeks of gestation must be wrong (It was below the UK abortion limit). The farther was doing something else, so I replied that it was correct.
"She should never have been resuscitated." - the literal response of the nurse, in earshot of the father.
He was trying to control himself. I pointed out that, she hadn't actually been "resuscitated" - just given oxygen etc. The nurse became increasingly flustered and then left the room.
Today Sir Peter Fahy, former head of Greater Manchester Police has said they should look again at the case in the light of 'new information', (his words not mine)
Do we have a reference with the current total qty of seats held by party in the selection up for election?
No elections here. Good job too - the main topic of interest is just how many offences the Deputy Council Leader will come up before the beak on. We are all losing count.
There's the speeding, the "ASDA incident", the (three?) harassment ones - one of which may relate to the blocking of the neighbour's side door with the motor caravan such that the neighbour could not get out of that side of his bungalow, the driving without due care and attention, the obstructing police and the resisting arrest ones, and at that point I start to lose track.
The assaulting a police officer with intent to resist arrest one was dropped.
This is all reported in the press, so is presumably not legally protected information.
They sound very aggressive, almost shouty in tone to me.
A please on the first and Let's on the second would be better.
But I'm not their target audience.
Its increasingly hard to see how Russia can even achieve a stalemate now - and the myth of Russia as the great and power bear has been shattered to the rest of the world now too. Putin might be able to put lipstick on a pig to his own citizens, but not to the West.
Supposedly the FPN is because the people who were gathered for work, it became a non-work event when they had cake and sang happy birthday, before they resumed work.
If that's the standard we're going by, then curry and beer isn't work either.
I said it was ridiculous then, it is equally ridiculous now, but the problem is that the standard people have tried to set is that food and alcohol and work don't mix. The amount of people here who wrote things along the lines of "I'd get sacked if I drank alcohol at work" etc. Whoopsie.
He doesn't even have to respond to questions from the Old Bill. He could "No Comment" the whole thing. We've all seen "24 Hours in Police Custody" and know how it works. There are absolutely zero circumstances where co-operating with the police in your interest.
(The local candidate is the leader of the Labour group & was very nearly toppled by the Greens last time around. Labour appear to have thrown the kitchen sink at retaining the seat, but I feel less might have been more in this particular case.)
So you appreciate why the police won’t touch it?
@NickBoles
·
57m
First time I’ve voted Labour since an equally glorious May morning in 1997. 🌹
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
For the Yanks, this is perhaps an opportunity to put it in national law rather than a Court ruling.
I suppose a risk is that if Russia declares a ceasefire, the West will split between those who support Ukrainian attempts to regain lost territory, and those who will want to believe that is the end of it, the Ukrainians should accept the loss of territory, and everyone can simply forget about it again.
A rational person would say
- We have a policy on abortion that defines a relatively late cut off point.
- Medical science is improving all the time.
- Therefore there will be a small number of children born & viable before the limit.
- Is this a problem?
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
The vast majority of abortions are early abortions. There are some difficult issues around late abortions, as has been raised in this thread, but these are rare cases. Most people -- leaving aside the extremists in the US Republican Party -- have few concerns about early abortions.
If you want to see the abortion rate go lower, we know how to achieve that. Good sex education in schools and better access to contraception. These are good things we should be doing anyway.
In elections where a third of councilors are being elected those skew towards Labour already so there’s little room to make large gains .
The projected national vote shares look the more important number given this .
Of course there could be some headline makers in London where all councilors are up for election .
Does he think he is losing?
Or is he still in the "victory next week" mode?
Will he try declaring victory and declaring a halt (but actually continuing with the light recreational war crimes etc), in the hope that arms deliveries to Ukraine will stop?
But its not just Carrie, a song and dance was made about alcohol and the cake too. The amount of people who said "I'd be sacked if I drank alcohol at work" and said I was "ridiculous" for pointing out that some places allow alcohol to be consumed at work.
Now however Keir is caught doing the same damned thing and suddenly its OK because it was for work.
Hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.
Some medics were taking the position that since such demands for not having a girl were often from close family, that the pressure on the mother was such that they didn't think it in her best interest to deny the abortion.
...
Interrogator BigG from the Selfappointed Political Police: And why did you buy a field for the donkey?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: Was it because you were having an affair with him?
SKS: No comment.
IBG: You've provided no evidence that you are innocent. Guilty!!
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
From Guardian.
"Tory peer and elections expert Robert Hayward said postal vote returns were down “quite markedly” compared with 2018. He added: “My expectation is therefore that turnout will be hard pushed to reach 30% in 2022.""
(His "offence" was to put on his blog advice on no-commenting interviews with the police. For which a police connected Times reporter hacked his accounts illegally, to unmask him)
They could become biggest Party, A few Green Gains from Lab on the cards apparently
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
My conclusion is the same as yours - a woman should have full control of her body and so decide on abortion at all times.
Logically this allows for very late abortions, but in practice these are very rare, and for tragically necessary reasons. I think we can trust women, with the advice of medical professionals, to make the choices in these situations without burdening them with worries over the letter of the law.
Posters visible: absolutely none. Though about 4-5 leaflets.
https://twitter.com/MichaelTakeMP/status/1522136333791240198
When the rules are now different so you can share a meal if it’s a working supper with work afterwards, not only is it not open and shut it’s actually a complete waste of police time to go there. What exactly are they supposed to investigate, the level of actual work going on during and afterwards? 😆This is what has been so laugh out loud lame everyday the mail pushed it joined by Tory ministers.
The mistake you and others making here, as you just done, is is too quick to reference and relate to Partygate, that was under a completely different set of rules.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15p_DZ1ltk9XStlEQHy-V3SaLCOWU_6j17jZ8sMvgRl4/edit#gid=0
"Downing Street staff partied until 1am in a seven-hour drinking session the night before Prince Philip's funeral, The Telegraph can reveal, as new claims emerged.
"People were served wine and spirits with mixers in plastic disposable cups, with alcohol at one point getting spilled on an office printer, according to an eyewitness.
"A photograph seen by this newspaper shows No 10 staff-some with drinks-gathered in the Downing Street basement, backing up accounts published earlier this month.
"Text messages seen by The Telegraph also indicate that attendees were still partying at the centre of Government at 1am, having started at around 6pm."
There are 12 "partygate" events under police investigation, with >100 questionnaires 'under caution'. That's what people have been upset about.
I don't see much of a difference between Keir drinking at 10pm and Boris's staff (not Boris who wasn't even at that location) drinking at 1am. Three hours later isn't that much of a difference, and Keir himself was at the 10pm drinking session.
My guess is that Durham police have a statement ready to go at 10pm tonight or 9am tomorrow morning explaining why SKS didn't technically breach the regulations.
Some say that it doesn't actually work - it is a sort of rolling mockup. Others that it can't be produced in any number.
Is he suggesting an equivalence between the T14 and a magic pony?
He would only accept this defeat if that were necessary to prevent a greater threat to his power. People have underestimated the resilience and popularity of the regime, so he may feel secure enough to raise the stakes again - but an attempt to split the West is quite possible. The retreat from the North was presented in part as a confidence-building measure for negotiations.
I think he is reasonably aware of how the army is faring, and the retreat from the North is evidence of that, as are the house arrests and the change in command appointments.
Another quote from the same article: "Another new claim is that some attendees went down the child slide belonging to Wilf Johnson, Boris Johnson's son. It has previously been reported that Wilf's swing was broken that night."
Did Starmer and team break any children's garden furniture in their revelries?
If it’s higher turn out from last time and lots of Tory losses, it’s pointing to Tory voters voting (mid term admitted) for rival party, making 1992 GE less likely in two years time, more of a clear signal of abandoning Boris.
The only question worth answering the next few days from the mountain of real votes is are those who gave Boris big majority actually deserting him, or just disgruntled this mid term May. Isn’t it?
Wiping out landslide majorities at one attempt is historically rare, it will need a rare huge loss of faith over just a few years.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
It would only ever occur in very rare and tragic circumstances, that would only be made more tragic by making abortion illegal in those situations.