You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
From an onlookers point of view it is suprising that Biden and Kamala Harris are at such long odds. Surely they should have an entrenched incumbency advantage?
I was in Helsinki yesterday taking their temperature.
They told me that Kamala means “awful” or “horrible” in Finnish.
The problem is that, being Finns, I don’t know whether they were just pulling my leg… no visual cues given their dry sense of humour
Google translate from Finnish gives it as "horrible".....
Sunak threw in "he supported Corbyn" at the end, with various members of the Labour front bench grinning and gesticulating towards the door saying "he's gone".
Not sure that "whatabout Corbyn" works when he is trying to deflect away from his defence of the bully Williamson and the security nightmare Braverman who he invited into his cabinet just weeks ago.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
In 2020, according to a chart in yesterday's NYT, 42 of our 50 states were called on election night. The exceptions were Alaska, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. (Two of those, Wisconsin and Michigan, were called the next day.)
Given the different rules in the states and the attempts to disrupt the counting, that seems like a reasonable performance to me.
I haven't seen a comparable count for this year's election, but I think it will be similar. (Since there was no presidential race, you would want to use the top race in each state to make such a count.)
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You are completely bonkers, HYUFD.
Common assault can't be "attempted" because it's not indictable. (Admittedly there is a possible way to get it put on an indictment using s40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but even so I don't think that allows it to be "attempted".)
For some reason you made me think of this hilarious sketch by Peter Cook:
If this comes to court at all, the defendant will probably be given a small fine or else the Soviet route will be taken and he'll be locked up as a psychiatric case according to his majesty's pleasure.
Even fear of violence alone is enough to be classed as assault, so clearly an assault charge is here
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
If they'd thrown them at the Queen, they would probably have been strung up.
Changing times...
But there was something similar with the Queen in 1981. Marcus Sarjeant fired a gun with blanks 6 times at the Trooping of the Colour.
He was found guilty of Treason. He wasn't "strung up".
He wasn't "found" guilty. He held his hands up. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "trial". You only get tried if you plead not guilty - or if such a plea is entered on your behalf.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
Nothing if they were senior enough.
People were occasionally executed for adultery under the Commonwealth, but that was a very brief period.
Buggery, bigamy, and bestiality were however, capital offences up till 1861.
In 2020, according to a chart in yesterday's NYT, 42 of our 50 states were called on election night. The exceptions were Alaska, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. (Two of those, Wisconsin and Michigan, were called the next day.)
Given the different rules in the states and the attempts to disrupt the counting, that seems like a reasonable performance to me.
I haven't seen a comparable count for this year's election, but I think it will be similar. (Since there was no presidential race, you would want to use the top race in each state to make such a count.)
In a sensible electoral system, of course, the correct number would be 50 - and that would be declared, not "called".
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
Nothing if they were senior enough.
People were occasionally executed for adultery under the Commonwealth, but that was a very brief period.
Buggery, bigamy, and bestiality were however, capital offences up till 1861.
If they'd thrown them at the Queen, they would probably have been strung up.
Changing times...
But there was something similar with the Queen in 1981. Marcus Sarjeant fired a gun with blanks 6 times at the Trooping of the Colour.
He was found guilty of Treason. He wasn't "strung up".
He wasn't "found" guilty. He held his hands up. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "trial". You only get tried if you plead not guilty - or if such a plea is entered on your behalf.
Not correct. Sarjeant was tried. He pled guilty late.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Not sufficient. Even if you don't like the rule of law, most of us do.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
If they'd thrown them at the Queen, they would probably have been strung up.
Changing times...
But there was something similar with the Queen in 1981. Marcus Sarjeant fired a gun with blanks 6 times at the Trooping of the Colour.
He was found guilty of Treason. He wasn't "strung up".
He wasn't "found" guilty. He held his hands up. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "trial". You only get tried if you plead not guilty - or if such a plea is entered on your behalf.
Not correct. Sarjeant was tried. He pled guilty late.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
They created the Church of England
Bravo.
Weird thing is compared to plenty of monarchs Henry VIII might well count as restrained.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Quite, and there are at least two other obvious routes for being let off, [edit] in principle, without prejudging like HYUFD does whether thei are applicable in this case.
If they'd thrown them at the Queen, they would probably have been strung up.
Changing times...
But there was something similar with the Queen in 1981. Marcus Sarjeant fired a gun with blanks 6 times at the Trooping of the Colour.
He was found guilty of Treason. He wasn't "strung up".
He wasn't "found" guilty. He held his hands up. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "trial". You only get tried if you plead not guilty - or if such a plea is entered on your behalf.
OK he pleaded guilty for treason. His conviction still counts as treason, whether there was a trial or not.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Was. He now fornicates within wedlock, so far as we know, which is encouraged.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
@HYUFD has just got in his tank and making his way up north to sort you out.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Where as in Florida where the state Supreme Court gave a free pass to a deeply unfair congressional map the NY court decided to be a martyr and play fair . Trying go do the right thing when it comes to the GOP only ends in defeat so sadly the lesson is one of just be as bad .
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Oh I know I'm a serial adulterer and fornicator but I'm not saying I'm God's representative on Earth and then breaking God's commandments.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
I think there is a minimum 60k Clark votes still to be counted. There is the potential for there being more Washoe mail to count than expected as well.
60-70k Clark would be right at the 50/50 mark for the Senate.
I think Ralston's intuition that there are 100k is definitely credible and if true then the Dems have Nevada.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Oh I know I'm a serial adulterer and fornicator but I'm not saying I'm God's representative on Earth and then breaking God's commandments.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
To the pure, all things are pure.
If you're God's representative on Earth, everything is allowed you.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Lots of street performers in York, particularly around that area. Could have been a novelty juggling act that went wrong.
Why are the GOP so out of touch with ordinary Americans?
They aren't. About 50% voted for them.
These people are not outliers.
The problem is that theres a very loud 10% or so on each extreme, and a big 80% in the middle, most of whom vote for what they consider the lesser of two evils.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Lots of street performers in York, particularly around that area. Could have been a novelty juggling act that went wrong.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
Nothing if they were senior enough.
People were occasionally executed for adultery under the Commonwealth, but that was a very brief period.
Buggery, bigamy, and bestiality were however, capital offences up till 1861.
If you like names, here's a pair for you: In Washington's 45th district, the race for state senate was between Manka Dhingra (D) and Ryika Hooshangi (R). (The Seattle Times made Hooshangi one of their token Republican endorsements.)
Sadly, Hooshangi lost.
(She has an impressive resume: https://www.ryika.com/ Especially for a girl from a little hick town like Redmond. )
It is getting bigger and redder by the week, it looks like a ripe strawberry. I have taken to watching #pmqs on HD so I can closely monitor the situation
Presumably due to either the excessive amount of alcohol or lies
Why are the GOP so out of touch with ordinary Americans?
They aren't. About 50% voted for them.
These people are not outliers.
The problem is that theres a very loud 10% or so on each extreme, and a big 80% in the middle, most of whom vote for what they consider the lesser of two evils.
One American friend (a Democrat) who lives in Alabama, says he feels like Charlton Heston in The Omega Man, surrounded by the mutants.
He does say though, that quite a few Republican voters get a kick out of trolling their opponents. They know that people like Roy Moore and MTG are batshit, but find it amusing to vote for them,
From an onlookers point of view it is suprising that Biden and Kamala Harris are at such long odds. Surely they should have an entrenched incumbency advantage?
I was in Helsinki yesterday taking their temperature.
They told me that Kamala means “awful” or “horrible” in Finnish.
The problem is that, being Finns, I don’t know whether they were just pulling my leg… no visual cues given their dry sense of humour
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Twitter universally giving PMQs to Starmer. I still think Starmer underwhelmed given the strength of his hand on GW. Vibe was the second nerdiest boy in the playground trying to beat up the nerdiest.
Why are the GOP so out of touch with ordinary Americans?
They aren't. About 50% voted for them.
These people are not outliers.
The problem is that theres a very loud 10% or so on each extreme, and a big 80% in the middle, most of whom vote for what they consider the lesser of two evils.
Courtesy of social media, we tend to get the impression that 50% of Americans agree with something that triggers the other 50% to lose their shit.
The 80% really need to make their presence felt and tell the 20% to STFU. Maybe yesterday was a start in that direction.
If they'd thrown them at the Queen, they would probably have been strung up.
Changing times...
But there was something similar with the Queen in 1981. Marcus Sarjeant fired a gun with blanks 6 times at the Trooping of the Colour.
He was found guilty of Treason. He wasn't "strung up".
He wasn't "found" guilty. He held his hands up. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "trial". You only get tried if you plead not guilty - or if such a plea is entered on your behalf.
Not correct. Sarjeant was tried. He pled guilty late.
Could he be said to be tried if the trial was aborted because he pleaded guilty?
Up to you.
Incidentally, I may be misunderstanding the 1981 position.
There may have been a trial regardless of when a plea was entered. I was applying the modern system (as was DJ41) in assuming a trial would be avoided by a sufficiently early guilty plea.
What I do know is that there was a trail, in which his guilty plea was accepted. You can argue the words but Wikipedia is correct to say there was a trial.
Supporting the protestors gotta hurt after SKS string 'em up rhetoric yesterday. Gonna be a call for retraction.
RS walked that 6-0.
Hodgearamus disagrees...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 7m Another comprehensive win for Keir Starmer.
The police seem to be making howlers on the protestors - stopping members of the public sorting the situation themselves and arresting journalists filming from public places. Their job is very simple. It's to arrest the protestors off the road, take them down the station and either release them without charge or charge with something that might stick based on the latest goings on in parliament and the courts.
It is getting bigger and redder by the week, it looks like a ripe strawberry. I have taken to watching #pmqs on HD so I can closely monitor the situation
Presumably due to either the excessive amount of alcohol or lies
#iamnotobsessedhonest
...or one of those annoying colds you just can't shift?
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
What happened to adulterers in previous centuries?
Nothing if they were senior enough.
People were occasionally executed for adultery under the Commonwealth, but that was a very brief period.
Buggery, bigamy, and bestiality were however, capital offences up till 1861.
To some extent capital and corporal punishment was a substitute for having no police forces, few jails, and poor detection rates.
It was believed that the only way to control crime & disorder was to make punishments so draconian it would deter offending in the first place.
Enforcement was increasing rare in the early 19th Century - capital punishments were increasingly commuted to transportation or jury acquittals, and corporal punishments enforced less and less.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Oh I know I'm a serial adulterer and fornicator but I'm not saying I'm God's representative on Earth and then breaking God's commandments.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
The Pope is God's representative on earth for Christians and has been since St Peter. Protestants just disagree with Papal infallibility. The King is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England, effectively chairman while the Archbishop of Canterbury is CEO
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Lots of street performers in York, particularly around that area. Could have been a novelty juggling act that went wrong.
Not shouting slogans about blame for slavery though
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Oh I know I'm a serial adulterer and fornicator but I'm not saying I'm God's representative on Earth and then breaking God's commandments.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
Does that fabled sub-continent maternal pride kick in?
A peculiar interview on Times Radio this morning, with General Lord Richards (ex Chief of Defence Staff 2010-2013 ish).
Arguing for negotiations with Mr Putin, including a referendum on occupied territories. new border guarantees, and a Hong Kong type deal where Russia gets Crimea for X years, and allusions to Republican success in the US Elections, which seems a touch premature.
No suggestions how a referendum works when the population has largely been driven out, or why a border deal would be respected given what happened to the last one.
Supporting the protestors gotta hurt after SKS string 'em up rhetoric yesterday. Gonna be a call for retraction.
RS walked that 6-0.
Hodgearamus disagrees...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 7m Another comprehensive win for Keir Starmer.
The police seem to be making howlers on the protestors - stopping members of the public sorting the situation themselves and arresting journalists filming from public places. Their job is very simple. It's to arrest the protestors off the road, take them down the station and either release them without charge or charge with something that might stick based on the latest goings on in parliament and the courts.
If they feel they don't have anything they can always 'offer a caution'. That'll gum up the works for the oil lot when they need a DBS check.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Lots of street performers in York, particularly around that area. Could have been a novelty juggling act that went wrong.
Not shouting slogans about blame for slavery though
Bit of a minefield, York, what with James II branding his slaves DoY, and the current groper's antics.
I had a schoolfriend once and we used to like making model planes and ships together. Talking (much!) more recently about his children, I inquired if modern children were too busy with computers and video games to bother with such old fashioned hand to eye coordination skills. To my surprise he positively praised Citadel/GW for encouraging children to take up skilful modelmaking and above all painting - he reckoned it had been good for his boys.
Does that fabled sub-continent maternal pride kick in?
Sadly not.
My mother was mostly concerned that it might be in the papers and cause a scandal. I mean I've pushed the boundaries of her social liberalism by not having an arranged and marrying an infidel but this was a step too far for her.
She was also worried if adultery might appear on CRB/DBS checks because she knows I have to have a clean record for my job.
Remember this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened up my first ever speeding letter thinking it was a career ender for me and that my career was over at the age of 24.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Lots of street performers in York, particularly around that area. Could have been a novelty juggling act that went wrong.
Not shouting slogans about blame for slavery though
Bit of a minefield, York, what with James II branding his slaves DoY, and the current groper's antics.
And bro Chas helping to kick-start it all (in the UK) with the Royal African Company or whatever it was called, so one can't fob it off on those dodgy Jacobites.
Supporting the protestors gotta hurt after SKS string 'em up rhetoric yesterday. Gonna be a call for retraction.
RS walked that 6-0.
Hodgearamus disagrees...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 7m Another comprehensive win for Keir Starmer.
The police seem to be making howlers on the protestors - stopping members of the public sorting the situation themselves and arresting journalists filming from public places. Their job is very simple. It's to arrest the protestors off the road, take them down the station and either release them without charge or charge with something that might stick based on the latest goings on in parliament and the courts.
Maybe the Police will actually bother to do something more than just fetch them coffee and ask them to come down now one of their own has been injured ?
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Trunp was threatening De Santis yesterday, saying it would go badly for him, might get hurt if he runs.
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Trunp was threatening De Santis yesterday, saying it would go badly for him, might get hurt if he runs.
Which is a clear tell Trump is afraid of him.
Trump is done. He can run but there is no way back for him now. While the Republicans think he is a winner they will tolerate him. Last night showed he was a liability.
I had no idea Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson were behind Games Workshop. I only knew of them from the Fighting Fantasy books. Which were ace. The thing I liked best about them was the effort they had put into world building. It was all so satisfyingly coherent; it made such internal sense. They did, however, fall short of J H Brennan's Grailquest series for sheer fun. I've just looked him up - surprisingly prolific for someone I thought only wrote five books and possibly also slightly odd.
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed - deliveries and times?, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
I see once again being woke is such an electoral liability and being anti woke leads to electoral victories, oh.
I'll say it again people don't give a shit about trans rights, either way, when they facing a choice between heating or eating, it's the economy stupid.
Who would have thought the party that has this kind of jobs chart would do well on economic issues?
Are those net or gross?
Maybe a stupid question - but how would the gross number be negative?
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Trunp was threatening De Santis yesterday, saying it would go badly for him, might get hurt if he runs.
Which is a clear tell Trump is afraid of him.
Trump is done. He can run but there is no way back for him now. While the Republicans think he is a winner they will tolerate him. Last night showed he was a liability.
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Oh I know I'm a serial adulterer and fornicator but I'm not saying I'm God's representative on Earth and then breaking God's commandments.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
The Pope is God's representative on earth for Christians and has been since St Peter. Protestants just disagree with Papal infallibility. The King is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England, effectively chairman while the Archbishop of Canterbury is CEO
What religion do you think Ian Paisley adhered to if it wasn't Christianity? Paisley didn't recognise the Pope as God's representative on earth. He literally called him the Antichrist.
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Trunp was threatening De Santis yesterday, saying it would go badly for him, might get hurt if he runs.
Which is a clear tell Trump is afraid of him.
Trump is done. He can run but there is no way back for him now. While the Republicans think he is a winner they will tolerate him. Last night showed he was a liability.
I had a schoolfriend once and we used to like making model planes and ships together. Talking (much!) more recently about his children, I inquired if modern children were too busy with computers and video games to bother with such old fashioned hand to eye coordination skills. To my surprise he positively praised Citadel/GW for encouraging children to take up skilful modelmaking and above all painting - he reckoned it had been good for his boys.
(They do a lot of good work seeding school clubs, Scouts and Duke of Edinburgh.)
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed - deliveries and times?, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
Hopefully the police let the vehicles through while noting down the reg numbers, and the fines will be in the post. The just stop oil crowd have always been happy to take whatever punishment comes their way and I'm sure the just let us drive wherever the fuck we like crowd will be similar.
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
Lots of street performers in York, particularly around that area. Could have been a novelty juggling act that went wrong.
Not shouting slogans about blame for slavery though
Bit of a minefield, York, what with James II branding his slaves DoY, and the current groper's antics.
And bro Chas helping to kick-start it all (in the UK) with the Royal African Company or whatever it was called, so one can't fob it off on those dodgy Jacobites.
Yep - the RAC was founded in 1660 as soon as a certain family bounced back like a bad cheque, and it was led by aforementioned James, who incidentally gave his name to New York.
Good to see the people of Yorkshire resist. Makes me proud to be a Luddite.
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed - deliveries and times?, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
Hopefully the police let the vehicles through while noting down the reg numbers, and the fines will be in the post. The just stop oil crowd have always been happy to take whatever punishment comes their way and I'm sure the just let us drive wherever the fuck we like crowd will be similar.
Exchange street has been a pain in the arse forever, the problem is its the only way out of that side of the city without a massive faff detour. Thats why they are all pretending they havent seen the signage or heard about tge new rules. Norwich doesnt want cars but the bus service is fucking awful.
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Trunp was threatening De Santis yesterday, saying it would go badly for him, might get hurt if he runs.
Which is a clear tell Trump is afraid of him.
Trump is done. He can run but there is no way back for him now. While the Republicans think he is a winner they will tolerate him. Last night showed he was a liability.
The Republicans are not rational.
Their voters, maybe.
The money behind the Party? Oh, they are every rational at discerning a winner from a loser.
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
You could be tried too (and perhaps should, given your subversive views on the supremacy of the Conservative Party over Parliament). But is there a case? Unless you think throwing an egg at a King is remotely treason, unless one knows he;s allergic to egg proteins ...
You'd better be careful saying that sort of thing in public - might well be not guilty in court.
He could in theory be tried for Treason and aiding the King's enemies but at least is guilty of attempted assault or battery
Oh, so you don't believe in the rule of law or keeping the libel lawyers off OGH's back?
Forget libel lawyers, he threw an egg at the King, in whose name prosecutions are made in this country.
We have been far too weak with leftwing extremist republicans and nationalists like you for too long if you think someone who attacks the King has a libel case.
In previous centuries he might even have been hanged!
Away and change your carpet. The whole point is you can't say X attacked the King till he is tried and found guilty. Full stop.
He most clearly did try and attack him, hence he threw an egg at him.
He might claim he was throwing it at the person standing next to Charles with whom he had a dispute, and his aim wasn't very good. Just saying....
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Perhaps the egg thrower is a staunch marriage person and hates adultery as a good Anglican.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
Are you sure you aren't?
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
Oh I know I'm a serial adulterer and fornicator but I'm not saying I'm God's representative on Earth and then breaking God's commandments.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
The Pope is God's representative on earth for Christians and has been since St Peter. Protestants just disagree with Papal infallibility. The King is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England, effectively chairman while the Archbishop of Canterbury is CEO
What religion do you think Ian Paisley adhered to if it wasn't Christianity? Paisley didn't recognise the Pope as God's representative on earth. He literally called him the Antichrist.
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed - deliveries and times?, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
Hopefully the police let the vehicles through while noting down the reg numbers, and the fines will be in the post. The just stop oil crowd have always been happy to take whatever punishment comes their way and I'm sure the just let us drive wherever the fuck we like crowd will be similar.
The police were actively waving vehicles through. Now I'll always stop at a red light etc and of course it's strict liability and all - but having an officer waving or stopping traffic is the one situation that trumps that, so can't see how any fines will be issued for the drivers. A right mess by Norfolk police.
I feel like if he's going for it DeSantis should declare soon, before Trump officially does. Don't even give a chance for Trump to set the first arguments. Unsettle him.
Trunp was threatening De Santis yesterday, saying it would go badly for him, might get hurt if he runs.
Which is a clear tell Trump is afraid of him.
Trump is done. He can run but there is no way back for him now. While the Republicans think he is a winner they will tolerate him. Last night showed he was a liability.
The Republicans are not rational.
Their voters, maybe.
The money behind the Party? Oh, they are every rational at discerning a winner from a loser.
They would have dumped Trump long ago if they were. Or maybe they are rational, but know the Republican voters in primaries don't give them a choice?
Comments
He was found guilty of Treason. He wasn't "strung up".
https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1590313622680793089
RS walked that 6-0.
Sunak threw in "he supported Corbyn" at the end, with various members of the Labour front bench grinning and gesticulating towards the door saying "he's gone".
Not sure that "whatabout Corbyn" works when he is trying to deflect away from his defence of the bully Williamson and the security nightmare Braverman who he invited into his cabinet just weeks ago.
That’s appalling.
Should be free-range, at the very least.
Given the different rules in the states and the attempts to disrupt the counting, that seems like a reasonable performance to me.
I haven't seen a comparable count for this year's election, but I think it will be similar. (Since there was no presidential race, you would want to use the top race in each state to make such a count.)
Buggery, bigamy, and bestiality were however, capital offences up till 1861.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
7m
Another comprehensive win for Keir Starmer.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/09/14/An-unemployed-teenager-pleaded-guilty-today-to-firing-a/5430369288000/
It would certainly be my defense if I was up for treason.
Weird thing is compared to plenty of monarchs Henry VIII might well count as restrained.
After all the Supreme Governor is a fornicator and adulterer.
There's that nisi to absolute gap which some of us find needs filling...
These people are not outliers.
Edit - Just to clarify, I've been named co-respondent in two divorce proceedings.
You haven't lived until your mother opens up one of those letters.
60-70k Clark would be right at the 50/50 mark for the Senate.
I think Ralston's intuition that there are 100k is definitely credible and if true then the Dems have Nevada.
If you're God's representative on Earth, everything is allowed you.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/08/sir-ian-livingstone-games-workshop-warhammer-co-founder-who/
Sadly, Hooshangi lost.
(She has an impressive resume: https://www.ryika.com/ Especially for a girl from a little hick town like Redmond. )
It is getting bigger and redder by the week, it looks like a ripe strawberry. I have taken to watching #pmqs on HD so I can closely monitor the situation
Presumably due to either the excessive amount of alcohol or lies
#iamnotobsessedhonest
He does say though, that quite a few Republican voters get a kick out of trolling their opponents. They know that people like Roy Moore and MTG are batshit, but find it amusing to vote for them,
The 80% really need to make their presence felt and tell the 20% to STFU. Maybe yesterday was a start in that direction.
Incidentally, I may be misunderstanding the 1981 position.
There may have been a trial regardless of when a plea was entered. I was applying the modern system (as was DJ41) in assuming a trial would be avoided by a sufficiently early guilty plea.
What I do know is that there was a trail, in which his guilty plea was accepted. You can argue the words but Wikipedia is correct to say there was a trial.
Their job is very simple. It's to arrest the protestors off the road, take them down the station and either release them without charge or charge with something that might stick based on the latest goings on in parliament and the courts.
The third is 2016 Trump was fresh, unknown, now he’s tired, old hat and dragging baggage.
It was believed that the only way to control crime & disorder was to make punishments so draconian it would deter offending in the first place.
Enforcement was increasing rare in the early 19th Century - capital punishments were increasingly commuted to transportation or jury acquittals, and corporal punishments enforced less and less.
1min 20sec in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23XuiFhIks
A peculiar interview on Times Radio this morning, with General Lord Richards (ex Chief of Defence Staff 2010-2013 ish).
Arguing for negotiations with Mr Putin, including a referendum on occupied territories. new border guarantees, and a Hong Kong type deal where Russia gets Crimea for X years, and allusions to Republican success in the US Elections, which seems a touch premature.
No suggestions how a referendum works when the population has largely been driven out, or why a border deal would be respected given what happened to the last one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqic2brEiQ8&lc=Ugyt8vuKXSqROu6xfRN4AaABAg
All very strange.
My mother was mostly concerned that it might be in the papers and cause a scandal. I mean I've pushed the boundaries of her social liberalism by not having an arranged and marrying an infidel but this was a step too far for her.
She was also worried if adultery might appear on CRB/DBS checks because she knows I have to have a clean record for my job.
Remember this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened up my first ever speeding letter thinking it was a career ender for me and that my career was over at the age of 24.
Which is a clear tell Trump is afraid of him.
The thing I liked best about them was the effort they had put into world building. It was all so satisfyingly coherent; it made such internal sense.
They did, however, fall short of J H Brennan's Grailquest series for sheer fun. I've just looked him up - surprisingly prolific for someone I thought only wrote five books and possibly also slightly odd.
This is about vehicles driving through a pedestrianised (since 2020) street, and activists stopping them.
Police threaten to arrest a "human bollard" (the name is from local people who have stopped drivers zooming through Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London after measures to stop through traffic have been vandalised) for "obstruction".
Then police supervise a row of vehicles driving through the pedestrianised street, where driving through between 10am and 4pm carries a £50 fine.
Normal for Norfolk?
(Personally I'm with the protestors on this one, unless there is something I have missed - deliveries and times?, and I think the police mind is being confused by the events around Just Stop OIl. They should just have fined the vehicle drivers, and sent them back the way they came).
https://twitter.com/carfreenorwich/status/1589290198785200128
I'll be honest
I'm dead against it.
People might need access to Dixxxxxons.
If I ran a poll aggregator I would simply not include the garbage partisan polls that every campaign knew were wrong.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1590320371546619904
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlbmIMbKZa4
Good to see the people of Yorkshire resist. Makes me proud to be a Luddite.
Norwich doesnt want cars but the bus service is fucking awful.
The money behind the Party? Oh, they are every rational at discerning a winner from a loser.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-34279158
*EDIT* Just noticed that the poster immediately above made the same connection. Apologies!
Not one for Ed Miliband to consume in public though.
A right mess by Norfolk police.
Success = Result - Expectations