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?
Ah, a paper tank, to go alongside the rest of the paper tiger bear that is the Russian military.
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
The other amusing thing is the amount of people saying that Keir's drinking with others indoors was acceptable because it was April 2021 not 2020 so the rules were different.
When did Prince Philip die? When was the funeral? April 2021.
So Keir was drinking indoors in the same month as the people who were drinking in Downing Street - except the PM wasn't at the Downing Street drinking session, the Leader of the Opposition was at his own one.
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?
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
The other amusing thing is the amount of people saying that Keir's drinking with others indoors was acceptable because it was April 2021 not 2020 so the rules were different.
When did Prince Philip die? When was the funeral? April 2021.
So Keir was drinking indoors in the same month as the people who were drinking in Downing Street - except the PM wasn't at the Downing Street drinking session, the Leader of the Opposition was at his own one.
You make the most bizarre arguments. Are we sure you aren't Dan Hodges?
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.
That’s a silly post. 🤣 They can’t possibly ever know if he technically did or didn’t, under the rules he was entitled to a working supper. 🙂
And no, MET didn’t give in to media and political pressure, Boris got a fpn so the met don’t get asked “why didn’t you act at the time” with a large bit of Downing Street putting its hand up and admitting guilt which got the police involved. Remember all the confessions Sue Gray gathered came first, the fact MET decided to investigate came second blindsiding everyone at the time. Sue Gray shared with them confessions, that’s why they got involved. Get your facts right. 😁
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.
That would be illegal even in the UK now for a mother to abort up to birth out of personal choice. That is effectively infanticide
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.
So you are an abortion on demand extremist then for abortion up to birth, certainly not in the middle
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?
Ah, a paper tank, to go alongside the rest of the paper tiger bear that is the Russian military.
It forms a set with the Russian planned moon landings, the hypersonic missiles, the nuclear powered cruise missiles and the rest.
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.
You underestimate the amount of rancor that HYUFD is capable of generating.
-------- I use Anusol and you should too. --------
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.
So you are an abortion on demand extremist then for abortion up to birth, certainly not in the middle
If you want to phrase it that way then yes, I am an extremist libertarian in favour of people being able to decide what they do with their own bodies instead of having that choice taken away from them and the decision made for them by others.
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.
Unilaterally declare a ceasefire? On what terms? We know what is happening to Ukrainians in Russian occupied territory. No reason to believe the murder rape torture or abductions to Siberia will stop just because they aren't attacking the Ukrainian army. Indeed they may simply use it to focus their efforts on ethnic cleansing instead. And you cannot trust them either. A Russian ceasefire may simply be tactical, giving them time to re-group whilst the Ukrainians hold the advantage. Once re-enforced they can then double down on taking the entire black sea coastline.
I would be very very sceptical about getting the champagne out at that moment.
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.
So you are an abortion on demand extremist then for abortion up to birth, certainly not in the middle
If you want to phrase it that way then yes, I am an extremist libertarian in favour of people being able to decide what they do with their own bodies instead of having that choice taken away from them and the decision made for them by others.
While having no concern for the unborn child either.
Yes I know you are also an ultra libertarian and not a conservative
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.
Not at this point - though it's certainly a future possibility. The current opinion is more about enabling unchecked anti-abortion laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/alito-opinion-abortion-pregnancy-coffee-cigarette-bans.html ...Alito’s draft opinion says that it takes no position on whether or when a fetus has legal rights. Unsurprisingly, given the very different laws currently on the books in different states, it contemplates that states will fall onto a spectrum of permitting versus prohibiting abortion. But in the actual meat of the opinion, in which Alito lays out the legal analysis lower courts should follow, he tips his hand: If future laws regulating abortion are challenged in court, the judge should apply the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, known as rational basis review. Under this test, someone arguing that a law violates their constitutional rights must prove that the law has no rational relationship to a legitimate goal. For obvious reasons, this is incredibly difficult to do, and laws are practically never struck down under that test. Alito goes further, however, and supplies the legitimate goal, writing “These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.”...
Thank you. I think this may well be where the next battle will be fought - to give the unborn child a legal status which will make it easier to strike down pro-abortion laws, even if these have a popular mandate. At that point, those on the right will mysteriously cease caring about states' rights.
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
Under the rules at that time Starmer was entitled to a working supper.
Let’s play it like this Nerys, you are the detective called into the gaffers office and this afternoon to investigate and clear it up once and for all.
Where exactly are you going to start 🤷♀️
You start by pulling out the archive file. It was put to Starmer, “you and your team are entitled to a working meal under these rules, did to stick to the rules and make it a working meal?” The answer was yes.
Now what are you going to do 😁
You see now it’s not about specifics, the whole smear crashes and dies on specifics, just good old fashioned political mud slinging, get him to answer and clear up what can’t be cleared up, like get him to deny he had sex with the pig because that will cast aspirtions in peoples minds 😂
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
Under the rules at that time Starmer was entitled to a working supper.
Let’s play it like this Nerys, you are the detective called into the gaffers office and this afternoon to investigate and clear it up once and for all.
Where exactly are you going to start 🤷♀️
You start by pulling out the archive file. It was put to Starmer, “you and your team are entitled to a working meal under these rules, did to stick to the rules and make it a working meal?” The answer was yes.
Now what are you going to do 😁
You see now it’s not about specifics, the whole smear crashes and dies on specifics, just good old fashioned political mud slinging, like get him to deny he had sex with the pig?
You've got him there. He was only allowed to eat the curried pig, not have sexy time with it like Cameron.
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.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
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.
So you are an abortion on demand extremist then for abortion up to birth, certainly not in the middle
If you want to phrase it that way then yes, I am an extremist libertarian in favour of people being able to decide what they do with their own bodies instead of having that choice taken away from them and the decision made for them by others.
While having no concern for the unborn child either.
Yes I know you are also an ultra libertarian and not a conservative
My daughter and I got back after yet another driving test practise with me swearing at the car for that annoying warning message AGAIN that tyres have become under-inflated. It was my daughter who suggested that - you know - maybe we should actually check the tyres this time?
Front drivers side was flat. I visibly paled. Daughter's driving test was the next morning first thing 8am and she was to take test in her own car. No spare wheel in the vehicle. Bugger. This was 7.30pm, tyre places shut. I managed to find a local tyre chap - 24 hours it said - so called him and he arrived at our house 10pm, supplying, in darkness, a highly-priced yet very budget tyre - but boy was I grateful.
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.
That’s a silly post. 🤣 They can’t possibly ever know if he technically did or didn’t, under the rules he was entitled to a working supper. 🙂
And no, MET didn’t give in to media and political pressure
My daughter and I got back after yet another driving test practise with me swearing at the car for that annoying warning message AGAIN that tyres have become under-inflated. It was my daughter who suggested that - you know - maybe we should actually check the tyres this time?
Front drivers side was flat. I visibly paled. Daughter's driving test was the next morning first thing 8am and she was to take test in her own car. No spare wheel in the vehicle. Bugger. This was 7.30pm, tyre places shut. I managed to find a local tyre chap - 24 hours it said - so called him and he arrived at our house 10pm, supplying, in darkness, a highly-priced yet very budget tyre - but boy was I grateful.
My daughter and I got back after yet another driving test practise with me swearing at the car for that annoying warning message AGAIN that tyres have become under-inflated. It was my daughter who suggested that - you know - maybe we should actually check the tyres this time?
Front drivers side was flat. I visibly paled. Daughter's driving test was the next morning first thing 8am and she was to take test in her own car. No spare wheel in the vehicle. Bugger. This was 7.30pm, tyre places shut. I managed to find a local tyre chap - 24 hours it said - so called him and he arrived at our house 10pm, supplying, in darkness, a highly-priced yet very budget tyre - but boy was I grateful.
She passed this morning.
I hope "her test" was implicit in your last sentence, and if so, congratulations.
Very languid electoral atmosphere here in Kusadasi, on the Turkish Aegean. Hard to gauge interest in the Wandsworth result amongst the locals, but i suspect a low turnout
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
Under the rules at that time Starmer was entitled to a working supper.
Let’s play it like this Nerys, you are the detective called into the gaffers office and this afternoon to investigate and clear it up once and for all.
Where exactly are you going to start 🤷♀️
You start by pulling out the archive file. It was put to Starmer, “you and your team are entitled to a working meal under these rules, did to stick to the rules and make it a working meal?” The answer was yes.
Now what are you going to do 😁
You see now it’s not about specifics, the whole smear crashes and dies on specifics, just good old fashioned political mud slinging, like get him to deny he had sex with the pig?
You've got him there. He was only allowed to eat the curried pig, not have sexy time with it like Cameron.
I'm a bit confused. I (almost certainly) had a glass óf wine with my dinner that same evening. Not that I could remember for sure, but let's assume I was. Was I committing a crime?
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.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I think this is the modern, rational position.
For me "I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs." is the money quote.
Very languid electoral atmosphere here in Kusadasi, on the Turkish Aegean. Hard to gauge interest in the Wandsworth result amongst the locals, but i suspect a low turnout
There appears to be a plant growing in your beer. Contrary to my previous opinion of you, you must be a very slow drinker?
My daughter and I got back after yet another driving test practise with me swearing at the car for that annoying warning message AGAIN that tyres have become under-inflated. It was my daughter who suggested that - you know - maybe we should actually check the tyres this time?
Front drivers side was flat. I visibly paled. Daughter's driving test was the next morning first thing 8am and she was to take test in her own car. No spare wheel in the vehicle. Bugger. This was 7.30pm, tyre places shut. I managed to find a local tyre chap - 24 hours it said - so called him and he arrived at our house 10pm, supplying, in darkness, a highly-priced yet very budget tyre - but boy was I grateful.
She passed this morning.
I gave one of our Ukrainians her first driving lesson yesterday. No insurance. No licence. I didn't give a fuck and neither did she. 🅐
In the Regulations, at each Step (1, 2 and 3), there is an exception to the restriction on gatherings if the gathering is “reasonably necessary” for “work purposes” and in particular for:
“preparing for work through a skills programme consisting of: a work experience placement, or work preparation training; applying for, and obtaining, work; meeting a requirement for a particular area of work; professional training that is working towards an external accreditation recognised by a professional body; or exams and assessments carried out in connection with any of the above matters.”
Anyone organising a permitted gathering in accordance with one of the above exceptions is legally required to take all reasonable measures to limit the risk of transmission of coronavirus, including taking into account “any guidance issued by the Government which is relevant to the gathering”.
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.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
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.
Unilaterally declare a ceasefire? On what terms? We know what is happening to Ukrainians in Russian occupied territory. No reason to believe the murder rape torture or abductions to Siberia will stop just because they aren't attacking the Ukrainian army. Indeed they may simply use it to focus their efforts on ethnic cleansing instead. And you cannot trust them either. A Russian ceasefire may simply be tactical, giving them time to re-group whilst the Ukrainians hold the advantage. Once re-enforced they can then double down on taking the entire black sea coastline.
I would be very very sceptical about getting the champagne out at that moment.
As would I, but you could see it being used by those reluctant about fossil fuel sanctions as a reason for delay, or for others to argue Ukraine should reciprocate (with an actual ceasefire), to allow for negotiations.
And there would be many who would then blame Ukraine for a resumption of hostilities. It's a risk we should be wary of.
Very languid electoral atmosphere here in Kusadasi, on the Turkish Aegean. Hard to gauge interest in the Wandsworth result amongst the locals, but i suspect a low turnout
There appears to be a plant growing in your beer. Contrary to my previous opinion of you, you must be a very slow drinker?
Fennel. Local tradition
Kusadasi has a pretty terrace of fish restaurants (where that photo was taken) surrounding a lively and very real fish market, with all the boats tied up outside. This is PROMISING
I have hired a moped. The sun is set fair for ten days.
It is quite the contrast to Jackson Mississippi. Which was about 5 days ago. Hard to believe
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.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I think that it's because, it is morally murky and complicated, that we should not seek to codify in law all the exceptions and edge cases, but trust the judgement of the woman to reach the difficult moral decision in the particulars of their case.
We registered for PVs last year to avoid having to go to the polling station due to Covid. On the application form, we just ticked the box for all elections, so voted by post this time too. I'm sure plenty of others did the same. Therefore, I should think that there are a lot more voters registered for a PV than in 2018.
So, when there are reports of PVs being down, is this as a fraction of total PVs issued, or actual votes? If it is actual votes compared to 2018 then this would be a big step down.
(Coffee drinking still "steady", but now I need a wee.)
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.
You ascribe no rights to the unborn child - which is where the roel of the state on setting time limits comes in
As always with many “moral” questions it is really about conflicting rights which is best solved by a democratic system
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.
You ascribe no rights to the unborn child - which is where the roel of the state on setting time limits comes in
As always with many “moral” questions it is really about conflicting rights which is best solved by a democratic system
No I don't ascribe any rights to the foetus.
When the child is born, then childbirth is a special moment that goes down on the birth certificate etc and that is when the rights begin, not before.
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.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
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.
Current rate looks to be about 18/1000 women (higher in relevant age groups) BA around 11/1000 in the early 1970s.
That seems a big shift especially given the reduction in the time limit from 28 weeks in 1990. Was that really anticipated?
Very languid electoral atmosphere here in Kusadasi, on the Turkish Aegean. Hard to gauge interest in the Wandsworth result amongst the locals, but i suspect a low turnout
There appears to be a plant growing in your beer. Contrary to my previous opinion of you, you must be a very slow drinker?
Fennel. Local tradition
Kusadasi has a pretty terrace of fish restaurants (where that photo was taken) surrounding a lively and very real fish market, with all the boats tied up outside. This is PROMISING
I have hired a moped. The sun is set fair for ten days.
It is quite the contrast to Jackson Mississippi. Which was about 5 days ago. Hard to believe
Do tell us about the fish so we can envy you (though we did have monkfish alla puttanesca last night ...).
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.
Not at this point - though it's certainly a future possibility. The current opinion is more about enabling unchecked anti-abortion laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/alito-opinion-abortion-pregnancy-coffee-cigarette-bans.html ...Alito’s draft opinion says that it takes no position on whether or when a fetus has legal rights. Unsurprisingly, given the very different laws currently on the books in different states, it contemplates that states will fall onto a spectrum of permitting versus prohibiting abortion. But in the actual meat of the opinion, in which Alito lays out the legal analysis lower courts should follow, he tips his hand: If future laws regulating abortion are challenged in court, the judge should apply the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, known as rational basis review. Under this test, someone arguing that a law violates their constitutional rights must prove that the law has no rational relationship to a legitimate goal. For obvious reasons, this is incredibly difficult to do, and laws are practically never struck down under that test. Alito goes further, however, and supplies the legitimate goal, writing “These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.”...
Thank you. I think this may well be where the next battle will be fought - to give the unborn child a legal status which will make it easier to strike down pro-abortion laws, even if these have a popular mandate. At that point, those on the right will mysteriously cease caring about states' rights.
Or indeed 'judicial activism'. Though they gave up caring about that, with respect to campaign finance and guns, years ago.
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.
I suspect if you proposed an abortion one minute before birth most people would resile from that concept.
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?
It is suggested that the Johnsons were well aware that their son's garden furniture had been broken and knew a party had gone on, yet Boris still told the Commons all rules were followed and took no immediate action to discipline staff.
Partygate was not just a piece of cake. There are 12 events under police investigation and further events under Sue Gray investigation. Boris was at at least three. We don't know how many he was at because he refuses to discuss any of it. He could publish what his FPN says, he could publish what he said in the police questionnaires, he could say what meetings he was at and who else was there... but he doesn't. I see people demanding Starmer say who was at this campaign event, but Johnson has refused to answer equivalent questions.
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.
I suspect if you proposed an abortion one minute before birth most people would resile from that concept.
Including pregnant women, so its a moot point.
How many pregnant women do you think are begging for an abortion one minute before birth?
Why is this even an issue, or is it just a straw windmill to tilt?
I will put my faith in women that they're not likely to do that and in the extremely unlikely event that they did they must have extremely good reasons and its none of my business.
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.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
From a medical perspective life begins at the quickening - around 4-5 months.
The problem is that you are stating as an absolute the core of your argument (when life begins) and so your position is just dogmatic.
I agree with the principle that it is a balance of rights - but viability seems like a more logical choice (the point when the child could have a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb)
Don't know if it has been commented on much but both Liverpool and Manchester City still have to play Steven Gerrard's Aston Villa. City's game is at home on the last day of the season. Villa can also have a say in who gets relegated (Everton?) as they have two games against Burnley.
Comments
When did Prince Philip die? When was the funeral? April 2021.
So Keir was drinking indoors in the same month as the people who were drinking in Downing Street - except the PM wasn't at the Downing Street drinking session, the Leader of the Opposition was at his own one.
And no, MET didn’t give in to media and political pressure, Boris got a fpn so the met don’t get asked “why didn’t you act at the time” with a large bit of Downing Street putting its hand up and admitting guilt which got the police involved. Remember all the confessions Sue Gray gathered came first, the fact MET decided to investigate came second blindsiding everyone at the time. Sue Gray shared with them confessions, that’s why they got involved. Get your facts right. 😁
--------
I use Anusol and you should too.
--------
I would be very very sceptical about getting the champagne out at that moment.
Yes I know you are also an ultra libertarian and not a conservative
Let’s play it like this Nerys, you are the detective called into the gaffers office and this afternoon to investigate and clear it up once and for all.
Where exactly are you going to start 🤷♀️
You start by pulling out the archive file. It was put to Starmer, “you and your team are entitled to a working meal under these rules, did to stick to the rules and make it a working meal?” The answer was yes.
Now what are you going to do 😁
You see now it’s not about specifics, the whole smear crashes and dies on specifics, just good old fashioned political mud slinging, get him to answer and clear up what can’t be cleared up, like get him to deny he had sex with the pig because that will cast aspirtions in peoples minds 😂
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
My daughter and I got back after yet another driving test practise with me swearing at the car for that annoying warning message AGAIN that tyres have become under-inflated. It was my daughter who suggested that - you know - maybe we should actually check the tyres this time?
Front drivers side was flat. I visibly paled. Daughter's driving test was the next morning first thing 8am and she was to take test in her own car. No spare wheel in the vehicle. Bugger. This was 7.30pm, tyre places shut. I managed to find a local tyre chap - 24 hours it said - so called him and he arrived at our house 10pm, supplying, in darkness, a highly-priced yet very budget tyre - but boy was I grateful.
She passed this morning.
For me "I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs." is the money quote.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QqfnHU9i38E
Fair play to him, he didn’t hold back on the roast of the politicians and media present.
“preparing for work through a skills programme consisting of:
a work experience placement, or
work preparation training;
applying for, and obtaining, work;
meeting a requirement for a particular area of work;
professional training that is working towards an external accreditation recognised by a professional body; or
exams and assessments carried out in connection with any of the above matters.”
Anyone organising a permitted gathering in accordance with one of the above exceptions is legally required to take all reasonable measures to limit the risk of transmission of coronavirus, including taking into account “any guidance issued by the Government which is relevant to the gathering”.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
And there would be many who would then blame Ukraine for a resumption of hostilities. It's a risk we should be wary of.
Kusadasi has a pretty terrace of fish restaurants (where that photo was taken) surrounding a lively and very real fish market, with all the boats tied up outside. This is PROMISING
I have hired a moped. The sun is set fair for ten days.
It is quite the contrast to Jackson Mississippi. Which was about 5 days ago. Hard to believe
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/climate-campaigners-refuse-to-pay-council-tax-until-fossil-fuel-investments-axed/ar-AAWWjgg?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=2e504afe21c54a339121a93d463475c6
We registered for PVs last year to avoid having to go to the polling station due to Covid. On the application form, we just ticked the box for all elections, so voted by post this time too. I'm sure plenty of others did the same. Therefore, I should think that there are a lot more voters registered for a PV than in 2018.
So, when there are reports of PVs being down, is this as a fraction of total PVs issued, or actual votes? If it is actual votes compared to 2018 then this would be a big step down.
(Coffee drinking still "steady", but now I need a wee.)
As always with many “moral” questions it is really about conflicting rights which is best solved by a democratic system
A new one has been conceived.
Whether it is fully alive or not is a nuanced moral issue, mind.
When the child is born, then childbirth is a special moment that goes down on the birth certificate etc and that is when the rights begin, not before.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
That seems a big shift especially given the reduction in the time limit from 28 weeks in 1990. Was that really anticipated?
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ
Though they gave up caring about that, with respect to campaign finance and guns, years ago.
Partygate was not just a piece of cake. There are 12 events under police investigation and further events under Sue Gray investigation. Boris was at at least three. We don't know how many he was at because he refuses to discuss any of it. He could publish what his FPN says, he could publish what he said in the police questionnaires, he could say what meetings he was at and who else was there... but he doesn't. I see people demanding Starmer say who was at this campaign event, but Johnson has refused to answer equivalent questions.
How many pregnant women do you think are begging for an abortion one minute before birth?
Why is this even an issue, or is it just a straw windmill to tilt?
I will put my faith in women that they're not likely to do that and in the extremely unlikely event that they did they must have extremely good reasons and its none of my business.
The problem is that you are stating as an absolute the core of your argument (when life begins) and so your position is just dogmatic.
I agree with the principle that it is a balance of rights - but viability seems like a more logical choice (the point when the child could have a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb)
Mixed feelings Stevie?