This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
I'm all for being wary of stepping on to a slippery slope, but I do think jumping to Gestapo, North Korea, or authoritarian third world states so swiftly can be counter productive, as the general public, who like mildly authoritarian acts, go 'Come on, it's not that big a deal'. There are 'good' countries where the same or worse happens, and whils that's not a reason to do the same, it shows there is a larger range between good and bad states at these things.
If this is to be the general approach to policing it needs to change. If it happens for a coronation or a state visit for an American or Chinese leader once every 5/10 years, then the right response is a little bit of tutting along with a yes minister style enquiry to find out nothing and give everyone a bit of space to forget all about it.
Marina Hyde's article is pretty good. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/09/met-police-royal-protesters-cells-force ...Prime minister Rishi Sunak is at pains to insist that “the police are operationally independent of government”, which might be a little too convenient. I’m not sure you get to pass draconian new legislation into law a mere three days before the coronation, then claim its prompt misuse has nothing to do with you. After all, you can hardly say the previous stab at draconian overhaul – the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – didn’t give a clear warning as to how this might play out. (This was the act that allowed for greater sentences for attacking statues than women, encouragingly.) In that case, the police began quickly and frequently misusing their new powers, either because they didn’t understand them, or because they didn’t care to. The Sarah Everard vigil during the special circumstances of the pandemic was an earlier warning bell – we saw how the Met policed protest when given almost unlimited powers.
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
How old are the children, please? And what main reason do they give?
The ones I have most contact with are up to 13. Although it is reported as widespread throughout all years. They don't see the relevance. A lot of Why? Why should we have a King? What's it to do with me? Prince Andrew and the p word came up a lot too. A common complaint is that elderly well meaning relatives have wasted their Saturday and considered it a "treat" for which they should be grateful too. Boring was frequent.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
He didn't. At least no one has showed that he did. This is just disinformation from the police. The only people we know had rape alarms who were arrested by the police were three members of the City of Westminster’s Night Safety team who were arrested at 2am - handing out rape alarms to women.
First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.
If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.
This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act
To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader
Given a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is a "hypothetical question" comments like this will render it even more hypothetical. I really and sincerely hope Davey won't sacrifice the repeal of authoritarian nonsense like this for the ministerial limo (to be fair, he's been there and done that).
Repealing both this and the Voter ID bill should be the first of a very long list of demands for confidence and supply which Starmer will refuse because he knows the broken Conservatives won't want a second election and will abstain on a Labour King's Speech.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
Do you have link for that?
The only one that I can find is at 2 AM being given out by volunteers of Night Stars, who support people sleeping rough, particularly vulnerable women. They seem more concerned about women's safety than republicanism.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
He didn't. At least no one has showed that he did. This is just disinformation from the police. The only people we know had rape alarms who were arrested by the police were three members of the City of Westminster’s Night Safety team who were arrested at 2am - handing out rape alarms to women.
Okay, fair enough. I’ll go back to sh!tting on the Met then!
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
Didn’t those turn out to be in the possession of volunteer Westminster safety officers who go out at night handing them out to vulnerable women?
As I have made clear, I am a pretty staunch monarchist and I think the way the police behaved was absolutely bloody awful. I am particularly angered now by seeing the head of the Met coming out and trying to justify the actions.
People have a right to protest and the police action was completely unacceptable.
Given that the then Head of the Met, a few years back, said that accidentally shooting the wrong brown people was just one of those things… Why are you surprised, exactly?
I suppose i just hoped that they might have learnt some lessons. Mind you I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. At least they didn't start gunning down volunteers in the name of security....
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Indeed. It really failed to catch on as I have noted here. Less than 20% of the populace celebrated. My guess is a large proportion of the young found the damp sermon quite weird and relentlessly dull.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
Is there a right to disruptive protest?
Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?
Wrong questions.
The only question that should matter in the context of the coronation is whether there is a right to protest until such times as that protest becomes disruptive? The police have clearly decided that right does not exist.
We are not supposed to go in for thought crimes in this country. Nor do we have a right to be protected from opinions and arguments we don't like. The establishment and their Conservative supporters on here are in danger of becoming the very thing they hate - Woke. Demanding to be protected from nasty ideas and masty people saying things they don't want to hear.
Protesting in that way is an act, not a thought.
Its only an act if you do it. It certainly isn't if you haven't even thought about doing it.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It has always been very easy for the police to arrest someone under 'public order' offences.
Regarding the laws about protests, I would say that extinction rebellion (and successor) protestors are as responsible for them as the conservative party are. They have popular support and Starmer cannot oppose them without doing damage to himself and the labour party.
When I was about to visit Santorini last year, my wife briefly accused me of having had the thought of using the 30-year old luggage tag on my suitcase, with an 01 London number on it, to "lock on" to a DC-9 airliner waiting at the airport, and thus preventing it from the leaving the airport ; this would have caused huge disruption as the airport was closed down for several hours, and as anti-terrorist police attended the scene.
Although the event happened seven months ago, there was no concrete evidence of an offence being planned or even thought of, and, in fact, no offence was actually committed, I will thus be handing myself to Hammersmith police tonight, as it could have been. And where would our society be now ?
Ironically, the publicity has given Republic far more attention and sympathy than if they'd bween allowed to shout through a megaphone or even chain themselves to a fence.
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Governments don't simply give people what they want, that's why there's all sorts of rules that are a good idea but the public would not care about the detail of.
This government is going to be regarded with a lot of suspicion about its motivations, given other policies around voting, boats etc. It creates an atmosphere.
They would be better off looking into why diesel is so much more expensive than petrol. WVM wants to.know
Guess where a lot of diesel was imported from?
Given approaching end of ICE, investing in refining capacity is not fashionable.
The Petrol Retails asdoc is questioning why there is such a price difference. I was Polesden Lacy
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.
Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.
I think they had to tread a really fine line.
As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.
I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.
Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.
What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.
They were acting like the Gestapo, we are close to a police state , you can get arrested now just because the police think they know what you are thinking.
Most probably a few interesting protests would have served to add some much needed colour to an otherwise grey and dreary washout. A bit of theatre! Something to talk about!
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
Who on here has actually been arrested themselves? I have!
Not in this country.
I was arrested for spying in Tunisia which is... an experience. I was also arrested along with my whole rig crew by the Saudis when we struck oil on the Saudi/Emirates border. This was fairly normal in the days prior to accurate GPS. I was also arrested for vagrancy after sleeping in a slipway in Den Helder in Northern Holland
All these ended well - although the Tunisia experience was not something I would like to repeat.
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370 … I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
How old are the children, please? And what main reason do they give?
The ones I have most contact with are up to 13. Although it is reported as widespread throughout all years. They don't see the relevance. A lot of Why? Why should we have a King? What's it to do with me? Prince Andrew and the p word came up a lot too. A common complaint is that elderly well meaning relatives have wasted their Saturday and considered it a "treat" for which they should be grateful too. Boring was frequent.
I can see how being forced to sit through that when there is Fifa to play and movies to stream might grate with 14 year olds. I mean, I’m no different!!
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
Saw an interesting story out of Scotland law in fact Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan. He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
At first glance it looks like the old problem of rape being very hard to prove in many cases, and so they are looking for ways to make conviction easier. Laudable goal to increase convictions obviously, but if it is indeed fairer than jury trial for those offences I don't see why not get rid of it for all offences.
I'm sure I've seen it proposed to lower the standard of proof in these cases as well.
If I don't get arrested for calling him Chazzy Sausage hands I think you are fine. The example involving a royal story is a distraction which makes concerns easier to dismiss as a one off, don't fall into the trap of performative anti-caroleanism!
Most probably a few interesting protests would have served to add some much needed colour to an otherwise grey and dreary washout. A bit of theatre! Something to talk about!
You seem to have found plenty to talk about with it.
Who on here has actually been arrested themselves? I have!
Not in this country.
I was arrested for spying in Tunisia which is... an experience. I was also arrested along with my whole rig crew by the Saudis when we struck oil on the Saudi/Emirates border. This was fairly normal in the days prior to accurate GPS. I was also arrested for vagrancy after sleeping in a slipway in Den Helder in Northern Holland
All these ended well - although the Tunisia experience was not something I would like to repeat.
I got pinched smuggling a blade into the Houses of Parliament.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
Maybe despite it being known the new, rich Ireland is causing people to decide it was wrong after all, even though no one seemed to care much at all, that they should be doing it all themselves? I know it is very expensive but if they are as rich as people say Ireland is now I don't see why they could 'never' manage.
Given his explanation I expect a push for them to cut a deal with France instead of the UK.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
I was once briefly arrested in an Italian train station many years ago in a case of mistaken identity ; true story, but released only about 20 minutes later, by a short and fat officer, but in a very big and wide uniform with huge epaulettes, who did actually slightly resemble Mussolini, but with a more cheerful grin.
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370 … I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
I'm not a constitutional expert, but some of the takes I've seen seem to suggest that looking in to potential wrongdoing in one branch by another is inherently unreasonable, even if the wrongdoing did indeed occur. That impeachment of a president should not be possible, that asking questions about justices is wrong, and everyone is supposed to just keep their own house in order.
I thought they whole point was the three branches were supposed to keep an eye on one another, but like I say not an expert. The court seems to be a bit of a law unto itself.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
This is the context for the (unanimous) verdict: “ The jury have the option to return one of several verdicts. It can find that Trump raped Carroll, who was in the front row of the court on Tuesday. Alternatively, if it does not believe the evidence proves rape, it can find he is responsible for sexual abuse, meaning forcible sexual contact without consent. If the jurors do not believe either of those findings are applicable, then they can return a verdict of forcible touching, or they can clear Trump. If they find Trump is responsible for sexual abuse in any form, the jurors will also have to assess damages.”
(Guardian) The jury awarded Carroll a total of $3 mn in damages, $2.7 mn of which are compensatory and $280,000 of which are punitive. They also awarded $20,000 in punitive damages against Trump over a claim of battery made by Carroll.
This is the context for the (unanimous) verdict: “ The jury have the option to return one of several verdicts. It can find that Trump raped Carroll, who was in the front row of the court on Tuesday. Alternatively, if it does not believe the evidence proves rape, it can find he is responsible for sexual abuse, meaning forcible sexual contact without consent. If the jurors do not believe either of those findings are applicable, then they can return a verdict of forcible touching, or they can clear Trump. If they find Trump is responsible for sexual abuse in any form, the jurors will also have to assess damages.”
The self confessed pussy grabber turns out to be a pervert.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
I suppose we're sufficiently annoyed by the Russians that we couldn't just stop doing it? I mean, otherwise if the Irish are this het up about it we could just stop.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
Seems to pay most things through crowdfunding thesedays. Either he's not as rich as he says or he's allergic to using his own cash even when he can easily afford it (not necessarily uncommon amongst rich folks).
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370 … I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
I'm not a constitutional expert, but some of the takes I've seen seem to suggest that looking in to potential wrongdoing in one branch by another is inherently unreasonable, even if the wrongdoing did indeed occur. That impeachment of a president should not be possible, that asking questions about justices is wrong, and everyone is supposed to just keep their own house in order.
I thought they whole point was the three branches were supposed to keep an eye on one another, but like I say not an expert. The court seems to be a bit of a law unto itself.
You’re absolutely right - coequal branches does not mean they are immune from each other’s actions. Otherwise how does the Supreme Court get to rule on the other two branches ? The Justices are not monarchs; just judges.
In any event, in this case the Senate subpoena is against a private individual, so a separation of powers argument simply isn’t available to him. Which is the point of the tweet.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
I should make clear, just in case, that I was goofing. In fact Fox News's website is currently saying
No wonder they found him guilty if he abused her during the civil case itself.
Of course, they probably don't want him to the Republican nominee anyway. They'll just simp for him when he is chosen.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
No, it wasn't. They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.
The guy who turned up with dozens of 120dB “rape alarms”, handed out to “protect the safety of the women protestors”, and definitely not intended to be used in a co-ordinated way to spook horses?
It was the MET
Exactly.
Forgive me if I bring prior context into this debate.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
Saw an interesting story out of Scotland law in fact Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan. He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
At first glance it looks like the old problem of rape being very hard to prove in many cases, and so they are looking for ways to make conviction easier. Laudable goal to increase convictions obviously, but if it is indeed fairer than jury trial for those offences I don't see why not get rid of it for all offences.
I'm sure I've seen it proposed to lower the standard of proof in these cases as well.
If I don't get arrested for calling him Chazzy Sausage hands I think you are fine. The example involving a royal story is a distraction which makes concerns easier to dismiss as a one off, don't fall into the trap of performative anti-caroleanism!
These fcukwits in Scotland have lost the plot, the yare really dangerous and Useless really wants to have thinking as a crime also. The guy is a useless nutter. All we need is these crooks guiding judges as to who is guilty , good for the lawyers.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
Mmmmm, this lot of kids in Liverpool were not impressed by the Republican lot
In seriousness, the Republicans have a rather limited time slot to get any Republic / change in attitude through as once Wills and Kate are on the throne, support will probably rise.
We do seem to have got ourselves in a mess over protests. On the one hand you have people being able to cause massive disruption or destroy public monuments without sanction and at the same time people being treated severely for waving placards or posting mildly offensive remarks on social media.
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370 … I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
I'm not a constitutional expert, but some of the takes I've seen seem to suggest that looking in to potential wrongdoing in one branch by another is inherently unreasonable, even if the wrongdoing did indeed occur. That impeachment of a president should not be possible, that asking questions about justices is wrong, and everyone is supposed to just keep their own house in order.
I thought they whole point was the three branches were supposed to keep an eye on one another, but like I say not an expert. The court seems to be a bit of a law unto itself.
The likes of Roger Stone think there was coup d'état when Nixon was forced out.
Apparently only the voters can ditch a President, 22nd Amendment notwithstanding.
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
Saw an interesting story out of Scotland law in fact Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan. He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
At first glance it looks like the old problem of rape being very hard to prove in many cases, and so they are looking for ways to make conviction easier. Laudable goal to increase convictions obviously, but if it is indeed fairer than jury trial for those offences I don't see why not get rid of it for all offences.
I'm sure I've seen it proposed to lower the standard of proof in these cases as well.
If I don't get arrested for calling him Chazzy Sausage hands I think you are fine. The example involving a royal story is a distraction which makes concerns easier to dismiss as a one off, don't fall into the trap of performative anti-caroleanism!
These fcukwits in Scotland have lost the plot, the yare really dangerous and Useless really wants to have thinking as a crime also. The guy is a useless nutter. All we need is these crooks guiding judges as to who is guilty , good for the lawyers.
This problem has come about because the party in government doesn’t actually believe anything other than power for powers sake.
They’re only acting the way they are because they see “Keir Starmer Human Rights Lawyer” as the Yang that gives them their Ying.
It’s a pathetic way to run a country.
No vision of their own. No fundamental principles of their own.
It’s all just performance.
Exactly that. It's all entirely government by performance, provocation and headlines.
Starmer is responding exactly in kind, as we mentioned, because he knows that his part of the jigsaw is to be the "north london human rights luvvie" in any Tory election campaign. I have to say that just how readily and quickly he's thus taken that "tougher" line worries me, because human rights is supposed to have been the centrepiece of his legal career, and he's also setting something of a Blairite-Authoritarian precedent for his actual administration in this. The further he goes down such a route before an election, the harder it will also become to become more liberal afterwards.
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370 … I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
I'm not a constitutional expert, but some of the takes I've seen seem to suggest that looking in to potential wrongdoing in one branch by another is inherently unreasonable, even if the wrongdoing did indeed occur. That impeachment of a president should not be possible, that asking questions about justices is wrong, and everyone is supposed to just keep their own house in order.
I thought they whole point was the three branches were supposed to keep an eye on one another, but like I say not an expert. The court seems to be a bit of a law unto itself.
You’re absolutely right - coequal branches does not mean they are immune from each other’s actions. Otherwise how does the Supreme Court get to rule on the other two branches ? The Justices are not monarchs; just judges.
In any event, in this case the Senate subpoena is against a private individual, so a separation of powers argument simply isn’t available to him. Which is the point of the tweet.
Note Congress can’t (for example) change SC justices’ terms of office - lifetime tenure is explicitly stated in the Constitution - but it’s not (for example) controversial that Congress can alter the numbers on the Court.
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
Saw an interesting story out of Scotland law in fact Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan. He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
At first glance it looks like the old problem of rape being very hard to prove in many cases, and so they are looking for ways to make conviction easier. Laudable goal to increase convictions obviously, but if it is indeed fairer than jury trial for those offences I don't see why not get rid of it for all offences.
I'm sure I've seen it proposed to lower the standard of proof in these cases as well.
If I don't get arrested for calling him Chazzy Sausage hands I think you are fine. The example involving a royal story is a distraction which makes concerns easier to dismiss as a one off, don't fall into the trap of performative anti-caroleanism!
These fcukwits in Scotland have lost the plot, the yare really dangerous and Useless really wants to have thinking as a crime also. The guy is a useless nutter. All we need is these crooks guiding judges as to who is guilty , good for the lawyers.
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
Saw an interesting story out of Scotland law in fact Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan. He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
At first glance it looks like the old problem of rape being very hard to prove in many cases, and so they are looking for ways to make conviction easier. Laudable goal to increase convictions obviously, but if it is indeed fairer than jury trial for those offences I don't see why not get rid of it for all offences.
I'm sure I've seen it proposed to lower the standard of proof in these cases as well.
If I don't get arrested for calling him Chazzy Sausage hands I think you are fine. The example involving a royal story is a distraction which makes concerns easier to dismiss as a one off, don't fall into the trap of performative anti-caroleanism!
These fcukwits in Scotland have lost the plot, the yare really dangerous and Useless really wants to have thinking as a crime also. The guy is a useless nutter. All we need is these crooks guiding judges as to who is guilty , good for the lawyers.
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370 … I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
I'm not a constitutional expert, but some of the takes I've seen seem to suggest that looking in to potential wrongdoing in one branch by another is inherently unreasonable, even if the wrongdoing did indeed occur. That impeachment of a president should not be possible, that asking questions about justices is wrong, and everyone is supposed to just keep their own house in order.
I thought they whole point was the three branches were supposed to keep an eye on one another, but like I say not an expert. The court seems to be a bit of a law unto itself.
You’re absolutely right - coequal branches does not mean they are immune from each other’s actions. Otherwise how does the Supreme Court get to rule on the other two branches ? The Justices are not monarchs; just judges.
In any event, in this case the Senate subpoena is against a private individual, so a separation of powers argument simply isn’t available to him. Which is the point of the tweet.
Note Congress can’t (for example) change SC justices’ terms of office - lifetime tenure is explicitly stated in the Constitution - but it’s not (for example) controversial that Congress can alter the numbers on the Court.
War of escalation. Dems add 3, then Republicans add 4. Give it a few terms and we'll have a tri-cameral system with 400+ in congress, 104 in senate, and 300 justices.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And so as the view of young regarding the treatment of Harry becomes more mainstream the royal family will die.
On the tarmac at Schiphol on the way back from Paris.
Main thing to note Galarie Layfette now offer a 12% (tax free) discount for Brits. That £1150 handbag for €1000 is great deal
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I doubt that it will change many votes.
But it is, nevertheless, not great for Trump that he has lost another legal case.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
While Elon Musk is currently tweeting far right conspiracy theories, one Twitter account is currently illegally streaming tonight’s Champions League game to at least 20,000 other Twitter users.
While Elon Musk is currently tweeting far right conspiracy theories, one Twitter account is currently illegally streaming tonight’s Champions League game to at least 20,000 other Twitter users.
I get the general impression Musk believes rules don't apply to him, and therefore his companies. Not in a simple 'I'm rich enough to get away with it' kind of way, but that he actually thinks that - didn't he once claim in a deposition an agreement with the SEC wasn't applicable because it was imposed on him?
Trump surges to 60% approval rating amongst GOP voters
DeSantis declares - I can grab pussy too! But Disney won't let me.
Essentially, you have a situation where the two main potential candidates for each party are in increasingly serious sh1t. Trump 's issues are well known but, while very few on here want to comment on Biden's issues (and some think he is the best President ever....), it is clear he is facing more and more problems when it comes to the allegations about whether he was taking his cut of foreign payments (see - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/05/09/if_hunter_is_indicted_149195.html).
Ironically, the only reason why Biden has as high as 42 in approval, is Rasmussen has him at 48, the highest of any pollster.
Does greed inflation have much impact on the underlying inflation rate?
Lax regulation.
But when dividends double to £1.4bn in a year, does this have any impact on inflation at all is my question. Does this feed into inflation in the same way the wage deals government are agreeing with the unions help to sustain underlying inflation?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
Trump surges to 60% approval rating amongst GOP voters
DeSantis declares - I can grab pussy too! But Disney won't let me.
Essentially, you have a situation where the two main potential candidates for each party are in increasingly serious sh1t. Trump 's issues are well known but, while very few on here want to comment on Biden's issues (and some think he is the best President ever....), it is clear he is facing more and more problems when it comes to the allegations about whether he was taking his cut of foreign payments (see - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/05/09/if_hunter_is_indicted_149195.html).
Ironically, the only reason why Biden has as high as 42 in approval, is Rasmussen has him at 48, the highest of any pollster.
Do you have an actual source for that second claim, rather than a MAGA obsessed website?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
As I've reminded many PBers that victims of sexual assault often forget the time and date due to the trauma, so instead of being convenient it is normal.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
I just looked in to the current state of the Irish air force, not brilliant.
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.
Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.
Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.
But I think that's right though:
The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).
So the offence need not have actually happened.
Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.
There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?
In the USA, in California, a unit of police was setup called SIS.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Perhaps they saw evidence you didn’t? Were you in court for the cross examination?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I doubt that it will change many votes.
But it is, nevertheless, not great for Trump that he has lost another legal case.
Agree on that. However, as I flagged below, Biden is increasingly in sh1t as well even if many people on this site don't want to acknowledge that. It is clear the allegations against him are not going away and there are now whistleblowers who have come forward on several different fronts. Biden himself is getting extremely tetchy and the White House is now banning reporters deemed to be too hostile. Meanwhile, Blinken and Garland are also getting some uncomfortable questions.
Both candidates have got problems but I would argue only Trump's is reflected in the budget. Biden's odds look too short for the nomination given everything that is happening.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.
Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.
I think they had to tread a really fine line.
As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.
I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.
Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.
What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.
What if we remained a republic in 1660
Might still be one today if Cromwell have lived another 10 years. Who knows, maybe even a democratic one.
Cromwell and his crew found democracy (such as it was back then) so inconvenient.
Dividing the country up into fiefdoms of literal military dictatorship was how it was when Cromwell died.
I have to say that I have the feeling that, without an actual conviction for rape, this will just be grist to both the the Trump "persecution" and "provocation" mills.
The more socially conservative or evangelical Trumpites will probably think he's just being persecuted, and the Proud Boys-ite faction will just enjoy the provocative, more borderline transgressive and taunting-the-libs aspect, as they always do.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I think that’s known as defending the indefensible.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/09/met-police-royal-protesters-cells-force
...Prime minister Rishi Sunak is at pains to insist that “the police are operationally independent of government”, which might be a little too convenient. I’m not sure you get to pass draconian new legislation into law a mere three days before the coronation, then claim its prompt misuse has nothing to do with you. After all, you can hardly say the previous stab at draconian overhaul – the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – didn’t give a clear warning as to how this might play out. (This was the act that allowed for greater sentences for attacking statues than women, encouragingly.) In that case, the police began quickly and frequently misusing their new powers, either because they didn’t understand them, or because they didn’t care to. The Sarah Everard vigil during the special circumstances of the pandemic was an earlier warning bell – we saw how the Met policed protest when given almost unlimited powers.
Yet they keep on getting more...
"The government is effectively saying that being silent and making no impact is the precondition for being able to protest. It is asking us to trust the police and limiting our ability to challenge them. It is absurd and dangerous for our freedoms and our democracy."
David Davis was right to raise concerns in Parliament today. Carol Monaghan SNP MP was right to ask the Policing Minister, Chris Philp "whether the right to peaceful protest only applies if the individual's views chime with the government's own".
Though, frankly, she has a nerve given that Holyrood's own Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and protest we've seen in these islands and is, probably, for that reason still not in force more than 2 years after being passed.
They don't see the relevance. A lot of Why? Why should we have a King? What's it to do with me?
Prince Andrew and the p word came up a lot too.
A common complaint is that elderly well meaning relatives have wasted their Saturday and considered it a "treat" for which they should be grateful too.
Boring was frequent.
The only one that I can find is at 2 AM being given out by volunteers of Night Stars, who support people sleeping rough, particularly vulnerable women. They seem more concerned about women's safety than republicanism.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1767488/coronation-rape-alarms-voluteers-arrested-soho-met-police
Which is an absolute arse when you regularly have to undergo an enhanced DBS.
(searches)
Seems so:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/07/womens-safety-volunteers-arrested-during-coronation-for-carrying-rape-alarms-18740988/
(edit - turns out there is an XR connection - see Twitter thread below)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22283557/activist-rape-alarm-plot-coronation/
Some speculation as to how this story got the Met into their current spot of bother here: https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655555277150732290
...or maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas.
Worst government ever? Maybe not, given we’ve thankfully binned Raaaaaab’s ludicrous Bill Of Rights.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/05/09/raf-jets-may-have-entered-irish-airspace-martin-says/
Regarding the laws about protests, I would say that extinction rebellion (and successor) protestors are as responsible for them as the conservative party are. They have popular support and Starmer cannot oppose them without doing damage to himself and the labour party.
For me: James Ellroy is a a genius. One of the greatest ever to scratch paper.
Although the event happened seven months ago, there was no concrete evidence of an offence being planned or even thought of, and, in fact, no offence was actually committed, I will thus be handing myself to Hammersmith police tonight, as it could have been. And where would our society be now ?
Hopefully that doesn't get me arrested.
The first Eurovision semi is about to start on BBC1.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I was arrested for spying in Tunisia which is... an experience.
I was also arrested along with my whole rig crew by the Saudis when we struck oil on the Saudi/Emirates border. This was fairly normal in the days prior to accurate GPS.
I was also arrested for vagrancy after sleeping in a slipway in Den Helder in Northern Holland
All these ended well - although the Tunisia experience was not something I would like to repeat.
https://twitter.com/AlexandraErin/status/1655993239600496686
Harlan Crow's lawyers fired off a pound-sand letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining why investigating Crow's patronge of Clarence Thomas "raises substantial separation of powers concerns," and all due respect to "Michael D. Bopp" but I don't think this is your call dude
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370
… I get why Clarence Thomas would invoke separation of powers here, but Harlan Crow is not a government official, he's just a guy, what the fuck are we doing here
Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan. He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
At first glance it looks like the old problem of rape being very hard to prove in many cases, and so they are looking for ways to make conviction easier. Laudable goal to increase convictions obviously, but if it is indeed fairer than jury trial for those offences I don't see why not get rid of it for all offences.
I'm sure I've seen it proposed to lower the standard of proof in these cases as well. If I don't get arrested for calling him Chazzy Sausage hands I think you are fine. The example involving a royal story is a distraction which makes concerns easier to dismiss as a one off, don't fall into the trap of performative anti-caroleanism!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Z51no1TD0
Given his explanation I expect a push for them to cut a deal with France instead of the UK.
Something to do with this
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-warns-russia-could-target-undersea-pipelines-and-cables/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/08/uk-military-chief-warns-of-russian-threat-to-vital-undersea-cables
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Verdicts
NO to rape.
YES on sexual abuse.
YES on damage.
$2 MILLION AWARD!
YES to reckless $20K
YES to defamatory!
YES Trump's statements were false.
YES there was malice.
https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1656014440851021843
I thought they whole point was the three branches were supposed to keep an eye on one another, but like I say not an expert. The court seems to be a bit of a law unto itself.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
“ The jury have the option to return one of several verdicts.
It can find that Trump raped Carroll, who was in the front row of the court on Tuesday. Alternatively, if it does not believe the evidence proves rape, it can find he is responsible for sexual abuse, meaning forcible sexual contact without consent.
If the jurors do not believe either of those findings are applicable, then they can return a verdict of forcible touching, or they can clear Trump. If they find Trump is responsible for sexual abuse in any form, the jurors will also have to assess damages.”
(Guardian)
The jury awarded Carroll a total of $3 mn in damages, $2.7 mn of which are compensatory and $280,000 of which are punitive. They also awarded $20,000 in punitive damages against Trump over a claim of battery made by Carroll.
SHOCKED.
DeSantis declares - I can grab pussy too! But Disney won't let me.
The Justices are not monarchs; just judges.
In any event, in this case the Senate subpoena is against a private individual, so a separation of powers argument simply isn’t available to him.
Which is the point of the tweet.
About the same as that of Germany after Versailles and for at least one of the same reasons...which one, I'll leave up to you.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
No wonder they found him guilty if he abused her during the civil case itself.
Of course, they probably don't want him to the Republican nominee anyway. They'll just simp for him when he is chosen.
They’re only acting the way they are because they see “Keir Starmer Human Rights Lawyer” as the Yang that gives them their Yin.
It’s a pathetic way to run a country.
No vision of their own. No fundamental principles of their own.
It’s all just performance.
Starmer has to play the game, for now. Once he’s in power, that problem goes away and I expect he’ll govern firmly from the centre.
Forgive me if I bring prior context into this debate.
All we need is these crooks guiding judges as to who is guilty , good for the lawyers.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/school-children-cheer-protesters-chant-26785779.amp
In seriousness, the Republicans have a rather limited time slot to get any Republic / change in attitude through as once Wills and Kate are on the throne, support will probably rise.
Apparently only the voters can ditch a President, 22nd Amendment notwithstanding.
Starmer is responding exactly in kind, as we mentioned, because he knows that his part of the jigsaw is to be the "north london human rights luvvie" in any Tory election campaign. I have to say that just how readily and quickly he's thus taken that "tougher" line worries me, because human rights is supposed to have been the centrepiece of his legal career, and he's also setting something of a Blairite-Authoritarian precedent for his actual administration in this. The further he goes down such a route before an election, the harder it will also become to become more liberal afterwards.
Blimey. That's going to cause trouble...
Might be more honest.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be.
2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace.
3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
On the tarmac at Schiphol on the way back from Paris.
Main thing to note Galarie Layfette now offer a 12% (tax free) discount for Brits. That £1150 handbag for €1000 is great deal
But it is, nevertheless, not great for Trump that he has lost another legal case.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1656017714102542343
Ironically, the only reason why Biden has as high as 42 in approval, is Rasmussen has him at 48, the highest of any pollster.
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
..
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Irish_Air_Corps
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease
Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut.
https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
Several people said this wasn’t nice.
Both candidates have got problems but I would argue only Trump's is reflected in the budget. Biden's odds look too short for the nomination given everything that is happening.
Dividing the country up into fiefdoms of literal military dictatorship was how it was when Cromwell died.
Next.
The more socially conservative or evangelical Trumpites will probably think he's just being persecuted, and the Proud Boys-ite faction will just enjoy the provocative, more borderline transgressive and taunting-the-libs aspect, as they always do.
We watched russia's "Victory Day" parade today with great interest. Our tribute:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1656009079830061075