Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
I hope you're not drifting back to posting links from far right crazies. You've done less of that in recent times, credit where credit's due.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Mussolini was never anything other than a joke either.
Striking for how long ‘we’ (the Allies) also portrayed AH as a joke figure, I seem to have a permanent cartoon of a ridiculous little bloke with a moustache being booted up the arse by someone or other imprinted on my memory. Of course a huge death toll is a great vouchsafe of being taken seriously. The Nazis were inherently ridiculous, a bunch of fat arsed farmers in brown (brown!) jodhpurs stomping about the place, but the attempted extermination of a race is a great way to stop the laughing.
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
"...forbade us from even talking about it..."
How effective was that?
VERY, for about a year
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus”
“Anyone posting claims that Covid-19 was “man-made or manufactured” could have seen their posts removed or restricted, and repeatedly sharing the allegation could have led to a ban from the site entirely.”
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
"...forbade us from even talking about it..."
How effective was that?
VERY, for about a year
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus”
“Anyone posting claims that Covid-19 was “man-made or manufactured” could have seen their posts removed or restricted, and repeatedly sharing the allegation could have led to a ban from the site entirely.”
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
I think he was horrified about the blowback on him, not the actual human cost. Like I said, not a terribly nice man. But definitely not the only such specimen in the Washington fishtank either. I agree that both Johnson and Corbyn are much nicer.
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Mussolini was never anything other than a joke either.
Striking for how long ‘we’ (the Allies) also portrayed AH as a joke figure, I seem to have a permanent cartoon of a ridiculous little bloke with a moustache being booted up the arse by someone or other imprinted on my memory. Of course a huge death toll is a great vouchsafe of being taken seriously. The Nazis were inherently ridiculous, a bunch of fat arsed farmers in brown (brown!) jodhpurs stomping about the place, but the attempted extermination of a race is a great way to stop the laughing.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Mussolini was never anything other than a joke either.
Striking for how long ‘we’ (the Allies) also portrayed AH as a joke figure, I seem to have a permanent cartoon of a ridiculous little bloke with a moustache being booted up the arse by someone or other imprinted on my memory. Of course a huge death toll is a great vouchsafe of being taken seriously. The Nazis were inherently ridiculous, a bunch of fat arsed farmers in brown (brown!) jodhpurs stomping about the place, but the attempted extermination of a race is a great way to stop the laughing.
'Addy and Hermy' was in the Dandy or Beano I think.
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
"...forbade us from even talking about it..."
How effective was that?
VERY, for about a year
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus”
“Anyone posting claims that Covid-19 was “man-made or manufactured” could have seen their posts removed or restricted, and repeatedly sharing the allegation could have led to a ban from the site entirely.”
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Mussolini was never anything other than a joke either.
Striking for how long ‘we’ (the Allies) also portrayed AH as a joke figure, I seem to have a permanent cartoon of a ridiculous little bloke with a moustache being booted up the arse by someone or other imprinted on my memory. Of course a huge death toll is a great vouchsafe of being taken seriously. The Nazis were inherently ridiculous, a bunch of fat arsed farmers in brown (brown!) jodhpurs stomping about the place, but the attempted extermination of a race is a great way to stop the laughing.
Indeed. See also Chaplin's The Great Dictator as evidence of the Comical Adolf meme.
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
"...forbade us from even talking about it..."
How effective was that?
VERY, for about a year
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus”
“Anyone posting claims that Covid-19 was “man-made or manufactured” could have seen their posts removed or restricted, and repeatedly sharing the allegation could have led to a ban from the site entirely.”
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
Have other Presidents delighted at the raging protests by their peeps?
The first ones presumably.
That’s a joke answer.
You asked what Trump had done that was dramatically out of kilter with other Presidents. Your have in your own words described something that was dramatically out of kilter with other Presidents. QED.
Yes, I'll concede that. Trump has used (and abused) social media in a way that none of his predecessors (or successor) has done. His successor's moves in the direction of censoring social media aren't great imo, but that's a different issue.
'I'm pleased to say I never voted for Corbyn's Labour, or Johnson's Conservatives. My conscience is clear. '
Well done!
I'm not quite so pure. I did vote for Johnson for Mayor of London, although in my defence I must say he did present as pro-EU at the time and the main alternative was Ken Livingstone. Nevertheless it's a mea culpa as I should have recognised him for what he is.
Lib Dems gain seat in Rutland. Not exactly news I hear you say. But the election was to be held on July 14th. However when nominations closed yesterday there was only one candidate - the Lib Dem.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
I think he was horrified about the blowback on him, not the actual human cost. Like I said, not a terribly nice man. But definitely not the only such specimen in the Washington fishtank either. I agree that both Johnson and Corbyn are much nicer.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
I think he was horrified about the blowback on him, not the actual human cost. Like I said, not a terribly nice man. But definitely not the only such specimen in the Washington fishtank either. I agree that both Johnson and Corbyn are much nicer.
Yes, but what makes you think that?
I recall him Tweeting to ask the rioters to withdraw. I don't think Trump ever changes his stance unless he's compelled strongly to do so.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Mussolini was never anything other than a joke either.
Striking for how long ‘we’ (the Allies) also portrayed AH as a joke figure, I seem to have a permanent cartoon of a ridiculous little bloke with a moustache being booted up the arse by someone or other imprinted on my memory. Of course a huge death toll is a great vouchsafe of being taken seriously. The Nazis were inherently ridiculous, a bunch of fat arsed farmers in brown (brown!) jodhpurs stomping about the place, but the attempted extermination of a race is a great way to stop the laughing.
Bader's cartoon might be what you have in mind? By a Raff type in flying boots.
Definitely along those lines, I suspect that formula was common enough to have become a meme. I’m pretty sure there was similar with all three Axis leader, including a distinctly racist portrayal of Hirohito.
Interesting to see how quickly the copious body of cartooning depicting the evils of the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact flipped to portraying our noble allies.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
I think he was horrified about the blowback on him, not the actual human cost. Like I said, not a terribly nice man. But definitely not the only such specimen in the Washington fishtank either. I agree that both Johnson and Corbyn are much nicer.
"Not a terribly nice man" - I agree with this assessment.
Putting aside the coup / non-coup definitions, how is Trump still a free man?
Between tax, fraud, and indeed his actions on Jan 6, surely he’s committed a slam dunk crime somewhere?
The rules of the game also require bad actors to be punished. Is Trump free because the rules of the game have already been subverted by the right, or because he’s not as bad an actor as the left claim?
Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.
"an"?
I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.
I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.
Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!
My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
And I cry b/s on that last line.
I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.
I'm far from convinced she did.
And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.
The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?
I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.
I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.
IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
Apologies, that was Foxy.
Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.
She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I became a teenager in the mid-1980s, so I was around. My dad was trying to run a small business, so I got perhaps a different view from most.
I am most certainly not saying that the UK in the 1980s was a 'picture postcard'. I'm saying it was not the slough of despond others make it out to be (aside from Slough, obvs.) My memories of the 1970s are few, and then not of the social aspects, but I'd argue the country was not exactly in a good state then.
As for 'hatred of unionised workers': I am unsure whether 'hatred' is the correct word. She was not find of them, certainly: then again one union tried to anti-democratically bring down her government, so the dislike was mutual.
We need some balance with regards to the 80s. Yes the country went through a difficult period of scrapping what was left of industry and turning itself into shops and banking. But there was that long run through the middle years where everything was new and shiny.
New clothes. New music. New gadgets. Computer games. I don't like what Thatcherism did to the country but I can at least respect that she had a vision and got on with it. What is the Boris vision? Instead of new gadgets and everything getting cheaper, its the opposite with everything getting more expensive. And instead of "go work and consume" its "if you can't afford fuel its the fault of leftie lawyers and woke trans immigrants".
I agree about Boris' lack of vision - oddly, as his Brexit support was based on an opportunistic vision (and people on here will disagree about that vision).
But Starmer also lacks vision. All we have seen from him is a WORN thesis and "I'm a big-brained lawyer, but I don't know if I broke the law." I don't get his vision.
The Lib Dems don't seem to have much of one, either.
I think it's slightly unfair to blame all the cost increases on Boris's PMship; much (though not all) of it is due to events outside his control. The question is how prices in other equivalent countries are increasing.
Starter merely has to demonstrate managerial competence. Voters price will back the alternative if they look competent.
The Tories successfully attributed the 2009 crash to Brown ignoring the Global Financial Crisis.
It will be interesting to see if they can pull off the manoeuvre in reverse.
Opinions are so entrenched around Brexit and cultural issues that we're arguing about a very narrow slice of the electorate.
Putting aside the coup / non-coup definitions, how is Trump still a free man?
Between tax, fraud, and indeed his actions on Jan 6, surely he’s committed a slam dunk crime somewhere?
The rules of the game also require bad actors to be punished. Is Trump free because the rules of the game have already been subverted by the right, or because he’s not as bad an actor as the left claim?
I wonder if the polarization he's created protects him in that any charge would be viewed as a fix-up by a big chunk of the public, then if it somehow got to court the jury would contain enough of those people to prevent a conviction.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
QED. You don’t see the dangers of the Woke Left because you don’t even recognise there is a problem
This is multiplied a hundred times over in the American Left, which means they will continue goading and provoking the Right, and which means the Right will return fire, and then some
Which leads to the polling we saw yesterday, with Trump - Trump! - leading Biden as the preferred president
Both sides have to lay down their arms; neither will, because both firmly believe their cause is righteous
Extreme woke as perversion of some sentiment long forgotten that as an ideology is close to McCarthyism....
The inevitable outcome of all of this is that in his current form, Putin is becoming more of a burden to the system than its salvation. The system will search for ways to minimize his role in state decision making while guaranteeing its own continuation.
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
Agreed that the ECHR is not perfect. But those attacking it are not acting in good faith. The attacks are in utter bad faith because they do not want to make it better or more effective. They simply want to get rid of it. The judge being foreign is simply the pretext used.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
'The man's mauled corpse was found inside the bear habitat along with plenty of beer cans. Masha and Misha "reacted angrily" when keepers tried to recover the man's corpse, but were eventually persuaded to give up their prize.'
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
Agreed that the ECHR is not perfect. But those attacking it are not acting in good faith. The attacks are in utter bad faith because they do not want to make it better or more effective. They simply want to get rid of it. The judge being foreign is simply the pretext used.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
« L’État, c’est nous » ? Non, « l’Etat, c’est eux » !
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
Agreed that the ECHR is not perfect. But those attacking it are not acting in good faith. The attacks are in utter bad faith because they do not want to make it better or more effective. They simply want to get rid of it. The judge being foreign is simply the pretext used.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
It used to be sent to Essex University was a Left-wing place. I wonder if it wasn't by the time Priti Patel studied politics there or she had such a bad time she reacted against it!
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
Agreed that the ECHR is not perfect. But those attacking it are not acting in good faith. The attacks are in utter bad faith because they do not want to make it better or more effective. They simply want to get rid of it. The judge being foreign is simply the pretext used.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
It used to be sent to Essex University was a Left-wing place. I wonder if it wasn't by the time Priti Patel studied politics there or she had such a bad time she reacted against it!
Virtually every university in the country is a leftwing place apart from maybe Buckingham and St Andrews and at a push Durham and a handful of the poshest Oxbridge colleges.
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
Agreed that the ECHR is not perfect. But those attacking it are not acting in good faith. The attacks are in utter bad faith because they do not want to make it better or more effective. They simply want to get rid of it. The judge being foreign is simply the pretext used.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
I agree with this too but in this case 3 English courts had refused to make interim orders suspending the transfer of the refugees to Rwanda. This suggests to me that they were persuaded that there was not even a prima facie case that what was being done was wrong in law. The quid pro quo was that the Home Secretary had given undertakings that if it was found to be unlawful at some future hearing the refugees would be returned; in other words no final decision as to their fate was being made.
In these circumstances I find the fact that a Judge on the ECtHR was willing to give an interim order without even hearing from the UK government pretty remarkable. The law has standing because it is impartial and applied fairly without fear or favour. I simply do not understand how this Judge felt able to do this.
This is an entirely separate question from whether this is a good policy or not: my view, on which I have been very clear, is that it is not. It is immoral gesture politics both callous and cruel directed against very vulnerable people. We do not, however, have courts of morals, we have courts of law and the ECtHR really did itself no favours at all in forgetting that.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
He is very obviously answering the question of why England should care. And there are indeed excellent reasons to do so. Our union has been a fabulous success because everyone brings things to the party. We are better together, to coin a phrase.
The inevitable outcome of all of this is that in his current form, Putin is becoming more of a burden to the system than its salvation. The system will search for ways to minimize his role in state decision making while guaranteeing its own continuation.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
He is very obviously answering the question of why England should care. And there are indeed excellent reasons to do so. Our union has been a fabulous success because everyone brings things to the party. We are better together, to coin a phrase.
It is not in the interests of England to exploit a neighbour.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Plus some fairly significant subsidies.
Plus of course on the current UK and EU trade deal there would be barriers to Scottish exports going to rUK, there would no be longer be a single market between Scotland and England
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
He is very obviously answering the question of why England should care. And there are indeed excellent reasons to do so. Our union has been a fabulous success because everyone brings things to the party. We are better together, to coin a phrase.
It is not in the interests of England to exploit a neighbour.
Nobody is exploiting anybody. Scotland has a lot to offer. So does England. Isn't it great that we can share all of it?
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Plus some fairly significant subsidies.
Plus of course on the current UK and EU trade deal there would be barriers to Scottish exports going to rUK, there would be longer be a single market between Scotland and England
Yer awfy (unpersuasively) squeaky for someone who is certain there's not going to be another referendum.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Plus some fairly significant subsidies.
Plus of course on the current UK and EU trade deal there would be barriers to Scottish exports going to rUK, there would be longer be a single market between Scotland and England
Yer awfy (unpersuasively) squeaky for someone who is certain there's not going to be another referendum.
I would never allow another referendum for a generation and the government has made clear it wouldn't either but if it did and Yes won that would be the result.
Realistically though only a hung parliament and Starmer needing SNP confidence and supply to become PM leads to indyref2
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
QED. You don’t see the dangers of the Woke Left because you don’t even recognise there is a problem
This is multiplied a hundred times over in the American Left, which means they will continue goading and provoking the Right, and which means the Right will return fire, and then some
Which leads to the polling we saw yesterday, with Trump - Trump! - leading Biden as the preferred president
Both sides have to lay down their arms; neither will, because both firmly believe their cause is righteous
Extreme woke as perversion of some sentiment long forgotten that as an ideology is close to McCarthyism....
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Let me bite.
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this - from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Agree with every word.
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements. But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
Agreed that the ECHR is not perfect. But those attacking it are not acting in good faith. The attacks are in utter bad faith because they do not want to make it better or more effective. They simply want to get rid of it. The judge being foreign is simply the pretext used.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
This, understandably, confuses two positions. It is a perfectly reasonable position to believe that the best way of protecting human rights within the UK is by adhering to the principles of the ECHR under the jurisdiction of UK courts.
Less brilliant of course is to think that all foreign/international systems are rubbish.
Is "Devon's Choice" an actual publication or just a Tory leaflet?
If the latter, "Our view on the by-election Why we're backing Helen Hurford" is a bit disingenuous, to put it mildly.
No doubt some lovely pictures of the aforementioned and presumably all the Tory activists' dogs (who apparently love eating LD literature) will find this much less digestible.
Others, though, may find this soft, long and highly absorbing.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
I think it's Murdo you need to be persuading..
This is a pretty piss poor attack by you. There is a profound economical and social benefit to England and RUK to having Scotland stay, and I don't see any harm in it being stated, other than to be moronically posted about as further grievance material. The people offended and appalled by this were already offended and appalled.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
I think it's Murdo you need to be persuading..
This is a pretty piss poor attack by you. There is a profound economic and social benefit to England and RUK to having Scotland stay, and I don't see any harm in it being stated, other than to be moronically posted about as further grievance material. The people offended and appalled by this were already offended and appalled.
One thing I notice is that such folks are “offended and appalled” pretty much regardless of Murdo et al’s activities.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Plus some fairly significant subsidies.
Plus of course on the current UK and EU trade deal there would be barriers to Scottish exports going to rUK, there would be longer be a single market between Scotland and England
Yer awfy (unpersuasively) squeaky for someone who is certain there's not going to be another referendum.
I would never allow another referendum for a generation and the government has made clear it wouldn't either but if it did and Yes won that would be the result.
Realistically though only a hung parliament and Starmer needing SNP confidence and supply to become PM leads to indyref2
Johnson might agree to one as he knows Nicola doesn't actually want one in next year because she would lose and then SNP implodes.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
I think it's Murdo you need to be persuading..
This is a pretty piss poor attack by you. There is a profound economic and social benefit to England and RUK to having Scotland stay, and I don't see any harm in it being stated, other than to be moronically posted about as further grievance material. The people offended and appalled by this were already offended and appalled.
Who's offended and appalled (apart from you at perceived pissy poorness)? I'm gratified and amused!
About to go for a hike here in the Armenian Caucasus
Remarkably I have been told to carry a big stick and stamp it loudly on the ground, every few metres. to frighten off “all the snakes”
Even more remarkably, I’ve been told to be really careful “in case there are bears”
Bears?? In Armenia?? But apparently it is so. Lots of them. So I was wrong about “the lack of fauna”
And yet it looks like this. Completely benign
Very nice country for bears and snakes. The potential dinner* delivers itself pre-marinated, so to speak.
*But one hopes, not actual.
I somehow always imagined bears living in deeply forested places. These hills are largely bald, or blessed with low shrubs
Who knew
The charming woman who runs these lodges says she has seen bears “many times”. They even have a little sprinkling of leopards
So maybe I did see a wildcat last night. It was definitely not a domestic tabby
The bears I've met in the US were in semi-open landscapes with low shrubs - although the low shrubs were huckleberries and therefore food.
At least you could see them at a distance. Surprising one in any sort of cover is what you don't want to do, hence the recommendation to make some noise.
Some US hikers have bells but that gets annoying after a while, so we always spoke a few loud words before turning a blind corner. 'No bears, no bears' etc.
Talking of encountering strange things outdoors, I had a Gasteruption jaculator in the garden yesterday...
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
I think it's Murdo you need to be persuading..
This is a pretty piss poor attack by you. There is a profound economic and social benefit to England and RUK to having Scotland stay, and I don't see any harm in it being stated, other than to be moronically posted about as further grievance material. The people offended and appalled by this were already offended and appalled.
Who's offended and appalled (apart from you at perceived pissy poorness)? I'm gratified and amused!
I suppose I'd just like to be treated to premium economy class Scottish nationalist grievance mongering if possible, rather than the Easyjet stuff.
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Plus some fairly significant subsidies.
Plus of course on the current UK and EU trade deal there would be barriers to Scottish exports going to rUK, there would be longer be a single market between Scotland and England
Yer awfy (unpersuasively) squeaky for someone who is certain there's not going to be another referendum.
I would never allow another referendum for a generation and the government has made clear it wouldn't either but if it did and Yes won that would be the result.
Realistically though only a hung parliament and Starmer needing SNP confidence and supply to become PM leads to indyref2
Johnson might agree to one as he knows Nicola doesn't actually want one in next year because she would lose and then SNP implodes.
But if Johnson loses it he is definitely out of No 10, so he won't
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
I think it's Murdo you need to be persuading..
This is a pretty piss poor attack by you. There is a profound economic and social benefit to England and RUK to having Scotland stay, and I don't see any harm in it being stated, other than to be moronically posted about as further grievance material. The people offended and appalled by this were already offended and appalled.
Who's offended and appalled (apart from you at perceived pissy poorness)? I'm gratified and amused!
I suppose I'd just like to be treated to premium economy class Scottish nationalist grievance mongering if possible, rather than the Easyjet stuff.
On PB it's usually replacement bus service Yoon grievance mongering going round the same old route of 8 years ago, but bus conductor Murdo's new approach of reciting the reasons that Scotland could thrive as an independent country makes a refreshing change.
Wow! This is horrific. How the British Empire treated the men who died in support of the regime:
The long-held explanation is grisly: according to reports made soon after the conflict, the bones were collected, pulverised and turned into fertiliser for agricultural use.
“It is certainly a singular fact that Great Britain should have sent out multitudes of soldiers to fight the battles of this country upon the continent of Europe, and should then import the bones as an article of commerce to fatten her soil!” the London Observer reported in November 1822.
Was there an "it's up to them, they are free individuals with agency" option?
Notable however that Remainers strongly favour degrees and Leavers even more strongly apprenticeships, so another proxy for the graduates v non graduates divide which was the key division of Brexit. Even more than age eg graduates over 65 voted Remain and non graduates under 35 voted Leave
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Moscow's not in the UK.
As for the unis, I reckon Hull would be interested in an offer from Scotland.
Wow! This is horrific. How the British Empire treated the men who died in support of the regime:
The long-held explanation is grisly: according to reports made soon after the conflict, the bones were collected, pulverised and turned into fertiliser for agricultural use.
“It is certainly a singular fact that Great Britain should have sent out multitudes of soldiers to fight the battles of this country upon the continent of Europe, and should then import the bones as an article of commerce to fatten her soil!” the London Observer reported in November 1822.
What a ludicrous take, there were more Belgians and Dutch in Wellington's forces at Waterloo v Napoleon than non Europeans from the emerging British Empire.
Not to mention the Prussians joined the British too later in the battle
Lol, Yoons so desperate that they're reduced to bigging up Scotland. I wonder who is the 'we' that Murdo keeps referring to who will be losing all that good shit?
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
And Scots lose the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe, the largest financial centre in Europe, the 2 best universities in Europe and membership of the G7, G20 and permanent membership of the UN Security Council
I think it's Murdo you need to be persuading..
This is a pretty piss poor attack by you. There is a profound economic and social benefit to England and RUK to having Scotland stay, and I don't see any harm in it being stated, other than to be moronically posted about as further grievance material. The people offended and appalled by this were already offended and appalled.
Who's offended and appalled (apart from you at perceived pissy poorness)? I'm gratified and amused!
I suppose I'd just like to be treated to premium economy class Scottish nationalist grievance mongering if possible, rather than the Easyjet stuff.
On PB it's usually replacement bus service Yoon grievance mongering going round the same old route of 8 years ago, but bus conductor Murdo's new approach of reciting the reasons that Scotland could thrive as an independent country makes a refreshing change.
Scottish independence would be a loss to England no doubt.
However even more a loss to Scotland once the trade barriers are erected to its largest export destination, Westminster subsidies to Scotland are ended and Scotland had to leave the G7, G20 and UN Security Council
‘Workers cannot expect pay rises to keep up with soaring cost of living, Treasury warns’
In other words: brace yourselves for a real decline in living standards.
Why the fuck shouldn’t we expect pay rises to keep up with inflation??
As it drives inflation further and we are back to the 1970s
Then clearly we never fixed the problem.
Thatcher and Major did through tight controls on spending and wage restraint. It can come back again as it already is starting to after the Ukraine war and excess demand post lockdown
Wow! This is horrific. How the British Empire treated the men who died in support of the regime:
The long-held explanation is grisly: according to reports made soon after the conflict, the bones were collected, pulverised and turned into fertiliser for agricultural use.
“It is certainly a singular fact that Great Britain should have sent out multitudes of soldiers to fight the battles of this country upon the continent of Europe, and should then import the bones as an article of commerce to fatten her soil!” the London Observer reported in November 1822.
What a ludicrous take, there were more Belgians and Dutch in Wellington's forces at Waterloo v Napoleon than non Europeans from the emerging British Empire.
Not to mention the Prussians joined the British too later in the battle
Who mentioned non Europeans? English, Scottish and Irish troops were as much defenders of the Empire as anyone. I believe at least half of Wellington's British troops were Irish and Scottish.
‘Workers cannot expect pay rises to keep up with soaring cost of living, Treasury warns’
In other words: brace yourselves for a real decline in living standards.
Why the fuck shouldn’t we expect pay rises to keep up with inflation??
As it drives inflation further and we are back to the 1970s
Then clearly we never fixed the problem.
Thatcher and Major did through tight controls on spending and wage restraint. It can come back again as it already is starting to after the Ukraine war and excess demand post lockdown
There will be no control on spending Though. The Tory client vote demands the money tap being left on.
Wow! This is horrific. How the British Empire treated the men who died in support of the regime:
The long-held explanation is grisly: according to reports made soon after the conflict, the bones were collected, pulverised and turned into fertiliser for agricultural use.
“It is certainly a singular fact that Great Britain should have sent out multitudes of soldiers to fight the battles of this country upon the continent of Europe, and should then import the bones as an article of commerce to fatten her soil!” the London Observer reported in November 1822.
What a ludicrous take, there were more Belgians and Dutch in Wellington's forces at Waterloo v Napoleon than non Europeans from the emerging British Empire.
Not to mention the Prussians joined the British too later in the battle
Who mentioned non Europeans? English, Scottish and Irish troops were as much defenders of the Empire as anyone. I believe at least half of Wellington's British troops were Irish and Scottish.
They weren't part of the Empire but the Union of the UK.
Indeed most of the Empire in Africa and the Middle East for example had not yet been created and in India, Australia, Canada and New Zealand it was only barely emerging.
Also "wage restraint" is the biggest load of shit going. It's always the lower paid who have to show "wage restraint" whilst criticising high earners for not showing "earnings restraint" is seen as what, class warfare or the politics of envy?
Comments
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus”
“Anyone posting claims that Covid-19 was “man-made or manufactured” could have seen their posts removed or restricted, and repeatedly sharing the allegation could have led to a ban from the site entirely.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-facebook-censored-the-lab-leak-theory/
Much of the arguments against the ECHR and its court have been from those saying how unconscionable for foreign judges to make rulings affecting this country, as if it is only their foreignness which is the issue.
A deceptive sleight of hand.
Let's leave aside that this was precisely the reason why the HRA came in - to domesticate the ECHR.
It is not the foreignness of the judges which is the problem but that the courts are not allowing the government to do what it wants. It is any fetter on their power, whether judicial (domestic or foreign), Parliamentary etc which they dislike & which they attack whenever they do not get their own way. See the attacks on the Miller judges & Supreme Court. Or the PM defaming lawyers saying they were abetting criminal gangs. Or the Lord Chancellor & Attorney-General, both statutorily required to defend the independence of the judiciary & Bar, being quiet when these attacks are made. See the justice system being systematically downgraded for years.
The concern is that, once out of the ECHR, the next attack will be on our domestic courts. Then on the idea of any sort of rights at all. We had one of our posters saying that people coming here from abroad should not have the same rights as "citizens" without clarifying what this means nor what rights they should be denied.
We already have government ministers raising the possibility of ignoring court orders. We have the PM wanting to breach existing laws & get away with it. We have Ministers saying in Parliament it's ok to break the law if it is "limited" & "specific".
So this idea that our well-established legal system wouldn't be next in the sights is for the birds, frankly.
(Read Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler: A Memoir" to understand how small baby steps & the accommodations people make allow a civilised country to degrade.)
We simply cannot be confident in the word of the British government. We cannot be confident that deep in its bones it truly believes it ought to be subject to law & restraints in the same way as everyone else, that the law applies equally to all. It believes & is increasingly acting as if the executive should do everything without scrutiny or restraint.
In such a world we all suffer even if some seem to think that it's ok because it's their party in power or they like the policy.
Time to revisit that Thomas More quote from A Man for All Seasons. Or this -
from Aeschylus - "Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.”
As Lord Sumption said in his Reith lectures -
"..that was written in the 5th century BC but the message is timeless & it’s universal. Law is ..... an expression of collective values and an alternative to violence and capricious despotism".
We have a capricious PM & an increasingly capricious government. We have no guaranteed immunity to what that can lead to, no matter how much complacency Tory supporters like to feel & express, here & elsewhere.
Bader's cartoon might be what you have in mind? By a Raff type in flying boots.
Then I wised up and realised they were trying to hoodwink us, and all the circumstantial evidence was against them
As ever, I was a pioneer here on PB. Now *almost* everyone else has caught up
Remarkably I have been told to carry a big stick and stamp it loudly on the ground, every few metres. to frighten off “all the snakes”
Even more remarkably, I’ve been told to be really careful “in case there are bears”
Bears?? In Armenia?? But apparently it is so. Lots of them. So I was wrong about “the lack of fauna”
And yet it looks like this. Completely benign
'I'm pleased to say I never voted for Corbyn's Labour, or Johnson's Conservatives. My conscience is clear.
Well done!
I'm not quite so pure. I did vote for Johnson for Mayor of London, although in my defence I must say he did present as pro-EU at the time and the main alternative was Ken Livingstone. Nevertheless it's a mea culpa as I should have recognised him for what he is.
Apart from that blemish though, I'm clean.
*But one hopes, not actual.
Who knew
The charming woman who runs these lodges says she has seen bears “many times”. They even have a little sprinkling of leopards
So maybe I did see a wildcat last night. It was definitely not a domestic tabby
Interesting to see how quickly the copious body of cartooning depicting the evils of the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact flipped to portraying our noble allies.
Between tax, fraud, and indeed his actions on Jan 6, surely he’s committed a slam dunk crime somewhere?
The rules of the game also require bad actors to be punished. Is Trump free because the rules of the game have already been subverted by the right, or because he’s not as bad an actor as the left claim?
The Tories successfully attributed the 2009 crash to Brown ignoring the Global Financial Crisis.
It will be interesting to see if they can pull off the manoeuvre in reverse.
Opinions are so entrenched around Brexit and cultural issues that we're arguing about a very narrow slice of the electorate.
All the best
Nick
And there are as a result, of course, two sides to that coin.
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-dei-crt-schools-parents
https://carnegieendowment.org/eurasiainsight/87341
I'd add that the ECHR is not perfect, and one might make a reasonable case for other arrangements.
But to do so in the context of what is a temporary injunction, which merely pauses a policy for a matter of weeks so that UK courts can hold a full hearing on its merits, is beyond suspicious.
That the policy is one brought into being by administrative fiat rather than legislation makes it worse.
And for the Home Secretary to label a perfectly reasonable judicial decision (whether she agrees with it or not) as "outrageous" is disgraceful rabble rousing.
In other words: brace yourselves for a real decline in living standards.
The Tory party is increasingly adopting a "l'etat c'est moi" cast of mind. This is profoundly unconservative and dangerous for our democracy.
https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2007-08.html
'The man's mauled corpse was found inside the bear habitat along with plenty of beer cans. Masha and Misha "reacted angrily" when keepers tried to recover the man's corpse, but were eventually persuaded to give up their prize.'
“We lose … roughly 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain, probably about half of our territorial waters, we lose the magnificent resource that is Scottish fishing waters, we lose the opportunities from North sea oil and gas (still there despite Nicola Sturgeon’s best efforts), we lose the potential for renewable energy from Scotland’s coasts in the North Sea and the Atlantic, we lose access to barrier-free trade for scotch whisky and scotch salmon, all these fantastic exports, and the opportunity to study at some of the world’s greatest universities … and the joy of having Scots as part of the great British nation … why would you want to throw all that away?”
https://twitter.com/eRestUK/status/1538045258348519424?s=20&t=kkH5IARydJ_XkEEbTlYl2Q
In these circumstances I find the fact that a Judge on the ECtHR was willing to give an interim order without even hearing from the UK government pretty remarkable. The law has standing because it is impartial and applied fairly without fear or favour. I simply do not understand how this Judge felt able to do this.
This is an entirely separate question from whether this is a good policy or not: my view, on which I have been very clear, is that it is not. It is immoral gesture politics both callous and cruel directed against very vulnerable people. We do not, however, have courts of morals, we have courts of law and the ECtHR really did itself no favours at all in forgetting that.
If the latter, "Our view on the by-election Why we're backing Helen Hurford" is a bit disingenuous, to put it mildly.
Realistically though only a hung parliament and Starmer needing SNP confidence and supply to become PM leads to indyref2
Less brilliant of course is to think that all foreign/international systems are rubbish.
Others, though, may find this soft, long and highly absorbing.
Degree 35%
Apprenticeship 44%
Remainers Degree 50%
Leavers Apprenticeship 56%
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1538115066200981505?s=20&t=VGA1FQQWBV_3HS6SnWXgbg
At least you could see them at a distance. Surprising one in any sort of cover is what you don't want to do, hence the recommendation to make some noise.
Some US hikers have bells but that gets annoying after a while, so we always spoke a few loud words before turning a blind corner. 'No bears, no bears' etc.
Talking of encountering strange things outdoors, I had a Gasteruption jaculator in the garden yesterday...
The long-held explanation is grisly: according to reports made soon after the conflict, the bones were collected, pulverised and turned into fertiliser for agricultural use.
“It is certainly a singular fact that Great Britain should have sent out multitudes of soldiers to fight the battles of this country upon the continent of Europe, and should then import the bones as an article of commerce to fatten her soil!” the London Observer reported in November 1822.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/18/mystery-of-waterloos-dead-soldiers-to-be-re-examined-by-academics
As for the unis, I reckon Hull would be interested in an offer from Scotland.
Not to mention the Prussians joined the British too later in the battle
However even more a loss to Scotland once the trade barriers are erected to its largest export destination, Westminster subsidies to Scotland are ended and Scotland had to leave the G7, G20 and UN Security Council
Indeed most of the Empire in Africa and the Middle East for example had not yet been created and in India, Australia, Canada and New Zealand it was only barely emerging.
I wonder why.