Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
Sir Keir’s seal of approval was on the Labour claim that Rishi doesn’t want to jail sex offenders
That was widely criticised across the political spectrum
I expect that libel falls into some special category for some reason?
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been an excellent choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
Who in their right mind would employ Braverman as a barrister?
She's admitted she can't process data correctly, has repeatedly given such poor legal advice that her employer has lost court cases and a great deal of public prestige, and is a dreadful speaker.
She would be to good legal process what Jeremy Corbyn was to Labour's parliamentary position - bad, or catastrophic.
I doubt the social media restrictions will make too much difference, it looks like Erdogan is on his way out which will be good news for Zelensky and the West as his opponent is much more critical of Putin
Governments need to wake up to the problem of richer and richer billionaires dominating our economy, our speech and our elections. We are now at gilded age levels of inequality and if you project forward the trends, individual billionaires will be more powerful than major governments in 50 to 100 years time. When you combine that with inheritance, we will eventually end up with an economy where meritocracy ends as money, power and success depends more on being in the proximity various family dynasies and their corporations than merit, intelligence or work ethic.
Neo-feudalism.
Which brings us back to the topic at hand.
Aside from conflating requests for censorship with laws, what we have here are people complaining that a company is obeying local laws. Rather than violating them.
Many of the same people back the EU requirements for monitoring, editing and blocking on social media.
Ah, but the morality of Turkey vs EU - true.
But do we want a world where companies or owners of companies decide which countries laws are a bit shitty and which aren’t?
The company is doing what all companies do and interpreting the legal position. In the past they have interpreted the requests for censorship as being outside the law, suffered a short term hit until it can be properly adjudicated, and then been able to continue. That is the moral position to take.
Musk, who I admire in many other ways in spite of his flaws, has decided to ignore the past experiences with Turkey and has agreed to self imposed censorship. This is stupid in two ways.
1. It makes a mockery of his claims about free speech. 2. It ignores the previous history and legal precendent in Turkey where such attempts to mute Twitter have been declared illegal.
It is a stupid decision and one I hope he will come to regret.
On turkish politics, Erdogan is a thug and something of an autocrat - but he ain’t no Putin
Tho one wonders if he will voluntarily relinquish power if he loses this election
There have been a few in that position in recent years. Populists with authoritarian tendencies, who definitely do things to suppress opposition but you’re never sure if they’d go the whole hog and fix an election.
Bolsonaro, Trump, Orban, Sakashvili (he walked, but may be regretting that now), Modi.
The ANC have yet to be tested on this and probably won’t be for a long time. Netanyahu hasn’t done in the past but times have changed.
I’m in no doubt Trump would have become a dictator if he came to power in a less established democracy.
Erdogan is an enigma. He has definitely improved the lives of many ordinary Turks. Especially the rural poor. I know sane educated Turks who adore him
He’s also a very canny operator on the foreign policy stage. He’s turned Turkey into a major regional player. A country that cannot be ignored. A country Putin is forced to please - if he can
At the same time he is a bit of a demagogue with a dash of islamism, and he’s mismanaged the economy of late
I don’t like him but a lot of Turks genuinely do - it’s not all propaganda. And Turkey does not feel like a police state, nor is it dangerous or desperate in Turkish cities
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
She can continue to say whatever she likes - if some Barrister body says that is inappropriate she can ignore it and dare them to do more. She would have plenty of support from people who don't even like what she says. Her political speech would survive even if professionally they say her words were wrong.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
Governments need to wake up to the problem of richer and richer billionaires dominating our economy, our speech and our elections. We are now at gilded age levels of inequality and if you project forward the trends, individual billionaires will be more powerful than major governments in 50 to 100 years time. When you combine that with inheritance, we will eventually end up with an economy where meritocracy ends as money, power and success depends more on being in the proximity various family dynasies and their corporations than merit, intelligence or work ethic.
Neo-feudalism.
Which brings us back to the topic at hand.
Aside from conflating requests for censorship with laws, what we have here are people complaining that a company is obeying local laws. Rather than violating them.
Many of the same people back the EU requirements for monitoring, editing and blocking on social media.
Ah, but the morality of Turkey vs EU - true.
But do we want a world where companies or owners of companies decide which countries laws are a bit shitty and which aren’t?
The company is doing what all companies do and interpreting the legal position. In the past they have interpreted the requests for censorship as being outside the law, suffered a short term hit until it can be properly adjudicated, and then been able to continue. That is the moral position to take.
Musk, who I admire in many other ways in spite of his flaws, has decided to ignore the past experiences with Turkey and has agreed to self imposed censorship. This is stupid in two ways.
1. It makes a mockery of his claims about free speech. 2. It ignores the previous history and legal precendent in Turkey where such attempts to mute Twitter have been declared illegal.
It is a stupid decision and one I hope he will come to regret.
On turkish politics, Erdogan is a thug and something of an autocrat - but he ain’t no Putin
Tho one wonders if he will voluntarily relinquish power if he loses this election
There have been a few in that position in recent years. Populists with authoritarian tendencies, who definitely do things to suppress opposition but you’re never sure if they’d go the whole hog and fix an election.
Bolsonaro, Trump, Orban, Sakashvili (he walked, but may be regretting that now), Modi.
The ANC have yet to be tested on this and probably won’t be for a long time. Netanyahu hasn’t done in the past but times have changed.
I’m in no doubt Trump would have become a dictator if he came to power in a less established democracy.
Some, despite their best efforts, are not able to mould society sufficiently to secure themselves against a loss. Or push comes to shove they cannot bring themselves to do do it, knowing they will not personally be screwed by a loss.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
How come nobody’s discussing today’s FA Cup final?
They sold all the tickets doncha know?
I’m watching!
Any good?
Not bad; not the same level as the men’s, but better tempered, I think.
It is, to my eye, a better spectacle. In much the same way as, at one point, women's tennis was a better spectacle - take some of the power out and finesse shines more. Also the goalkeepers are smaller. Which tends to make for more goals (in general, if not today in particular.)
Governments need to wake up to the problem of richer and richer billionaires dominating our economy, our speech and our elections. We are now at gilded age levels of inequality and if you project forward the trends, individual billionaires will be more powerful than major governments in 50 to 100 years time. When you combine that with inheritance, we will eventually end up with an economy where meritocracy ends as money, power and success depends more on being in the proximity various family dynasies and their corporations than merit, intelligence or work ethic.
Perhaps. I'm always a little bit wary of this 'Soon we'll be living in Corporate World' idea.
As you correctly point out, very clever individuals obtain a huge amount of wealth, but when they pass it down, there children are often not as clever, and often not as motivated (I've seen plenty of 'I don't need to study, daddy will sort me out' types, whilst they do a line of coke in the classroom).
Daddy does sort them out, but then when Daddy dies, they're unable to avoid being exploited by various 'advisers' who just rob them blind and eventually take their empire apart, broken up into smaller parts.
Individuals can become the 'richest person in the world' rubbish, but upon their inevitable death, their empire is ripped apart by infighting, lawyer fees, 'advisers' and others.
It may be an old example, but wasn't Anna Nicole Smith elderly husband's empire taken apart this way? He died in the 1990s. She and his eldest spent fifteen years in court fighting for inheritance. Both have now died anyway and what's left of J. Howard Marshall's original billions? Not much I suspect.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
Wrongly accused. Falsely accused tends to imply malice.
Has this been aired here? Commentary on social media that Loreen's winning Eurovision song plagiarised the Ukranian 2005 Eurovision entry of Mika Newton titled "V plenu". You can compare the songs here: https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
Has this been aired here? Commentary on social media that Loreen's winning Eurovision song plagiarised the Ukranian 2005 Eurovision entry of Mika Newton titled "V plenu". You can compare the songs here: https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
Has this been aired here? Commentary on social media that Loreen's winning Eurovision song plagiarised the Ukranian 2005 Eurovision entry of Mika Newton titled "V plenu". You can compare the songs here: https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
And also in spirit, I would argue. I'd want a lot more than an accusation before assuming something must be up.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
No, it doesn't. A lack of conviction might come about because the accusations are found to be false, but there are many reasons why a true accusation might not lead to a conviction and we shouldn't assume that the accusations were false or vexatious.
For example, it's extremely likely that Al Capone was involved in several murders for which he was never convicted. Anybody who accused him of those murders was probably being truthful.
Has this been aired here? Commentary on social media that Loreen's winning Eurovision song plagiarised the Ukranian 2005 Eurovision entry of Mika Newton titled "V plenu". You can compare the songs here: https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
Governments need to wake up to the problem of richer and richer billionaires dominating our economy, our speech and our elections. We are now at gilded age levels of inequality and if you project forward the trends, individual billionaires will be more powerful than major governments in 50 to 100 years time. When you combine that with inheritance, we will eventually end up with an economy where meritocracy ends as money, power and success depends more on being in the proximity various family dynasies and their corporations than merit, intelligence or work ethic.
Perhaps. I'm always a little bit wary of this 'Soon we'll be living in Corporate World' idea.
As you correctly point out, very clever individuals obtain a huge amount of wealth, but when they pass it down, there children are often not as clever, and often not as motivated (I've seen plenty of 'I don't need to study, daddy will sort me out' types, whilst they do a line of coke in the classroom).
Daddy does sort them out, but then when Daddy dies, they're unable to avoid being exploited by various 'advisers' who just rob them blind and eventually take their empire apart, broken up into smaller parts.
Individuals can become the 'richest person in the world' rubbish, but upon their inevitable death, their empire is ripped apart by infighting, lawyer fees, 'advisers' and others.
It may be an old example, but wasn't Anna Nicole Smith elderly husband's empire taken apart this way? He died in the 1990s. She and his eldest spent fifteen years in court fighting for inheritance. Both have now died anyway and what's left of J. Howard Marshall's original billions? Not much I suspect.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
Plenty of other MPs are; being elected doesn’t absolve you of professional constraints. And note her rise in government involved appointment to the post of Attorney General (a law post she did not distinguish during her incumbency.)
Definitely not my party anymore, and cannot see David Herdson rejoining the party any time soon.
Boris Johnson’s chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, has confirmed his bid to become an MP, with his name placed on the list of Conservative candidates for the next general election.
Lord Frost had earlier suggested he was ready to drop his peerage in hope of securing a Commons seat, but only if he could secure a safe constituency.
On Sunday he confirmed Tory officials had accepted his bid to join the party’s candidate list, but said he is not linked to a specific seat.
He said in a statement: “I am grateful to the party authorities for accepting my application as a potential Conservative candidate for the House of Commons, the centre of our national political life.
“I have not yet applied for any seat and am considering my next steps. Meanwhile I look forward to campaigning for the party and for Conservative principles in the months to come.”
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
I don't know about France but I know Germany has strict laws on Holocaust denialism/minimisation which contributes to this score.
And tweets prejudicial to ongoing court cases, content related to the privacy of minors, vexatious accusations of sexual crimes, media harmful to children, tweets advocating violence or offering trade in banned materials. I can think of many, many reasons why it's legitimate for tweets to be removed. The numbers are much less important than the reasons.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
I don't know about France but I know Germany has strict laws on Holocaust denialism/minimisation which contributes to this score.
I would be far more concerned about why Britain and France have the scores they do - bearing in mind that we don't have the Holocaust laws that Germany does.
Has this been aired here? Commentary on social media that Loreen's winning Eurovision song plagiarised the Ukranian 2005 Eurovision entry of Mika Newton titled "V plenu". You can compare the songs here: https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
It's "My Lovely Horse", all over again.
Talking of great songs better than the original has anyone come across the uncannily talented KSRhoades yet?
He’s going viral with children’s songs done in the style of centrist dad bands. Sounds bad right? But the production values of the videos, music and lyrics are so good some are arguably better than the original.
For a taster here’s “you are my sunshine” sung in the style of Mumford and Sons.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
Plenty of other MPs are; being elected doesn’t absolve you of professional constraints. And note her rise in government involved appointment to the post of Attorney General (a law post she did not distinguish during her incumbency.)
It should if those constraints are politically motivated.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Andrew is no longer a working royal. He doesn't need a large royal estate like Royal Lodge which can be used by the Prince and Princess of Wales and family. The King has graciously offered him Frogmore Cottage which the Sussexes have vacated, if he refuses that then the King will have no choice but to send in the bailiffs to evict his brother
Priests to carry ID cards that reveal if they are sex offenders
Abuse survivors describe traffic light system for clergy as one of the ‘Catholic Church’s top three most stupid ideas’
Priests in France will be required to carry QR codes that the public can scan in order to check if they have been struck off as part of a sexual abuse clampdown.
The new wallet-sized ID cards will, after being scanned by a mobile phone, bring up a green, orange or red light depending on the priest’s status and career history.
The new system announced at the French Bishops’ Conference is designed to make the church more transparent but has been criticised as frivolous by some sex abuse survivor groups.
The ID card’s main function is to show whether a priest is qualified to lead mass or hear confession, but the code also discloses whether the priest has been stripped of clerical status.
The card does not explicitly state why a priest has been stripped of that status, but the red colour code would serve as an early warning signal that they may have faced sexual abuse charges.
This means the cards can in effect be used by Catholics to find out whether bishops, deacons and priests in their area are possible sex offenders, broadcaster France 24 reported.
The orange light may simply indicate that a recently-ordained priest is not fully qualified to lead a mass yet.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Has this been aired here? Commentary on social media that Loreen's winning Eurovision song plagiarised the Ukranian 2005 Eurovision entry of Mika Newton titled "V plenu". You can compare the songs here: https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
It's "My Lovely Horse", all over again.
At least with "My Lovely Horse", Ted and Dougal reverted to their original for Eurovision, upon realising they would get done for plagarism.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
Plenty of other MPs are; being elected doesn’t absolve you of professional constraints. And note her rise in government involved appointment to the post of Attorney General (a law post she did not distinguish during her incumbency.)
It should if those constraints are politically motivated.
Er, how can they be? They were prior to political careers. A doctor can't advocate mass euthanasia and then complain the GMC was politically motivated with foresight.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
It doesn't in law, because the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil trials.
For example, Harold Loughans was acquitted of murdering Rose Robinson in Portsmouth in 1943. In 1961 Loughans sued Odhams Press because he claimed the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel, J. J. Casswell, implied he was guilty. But the jury found the implication was justified on the balance of probabilities.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Governments need to wake up to the problem of richer and richer billionaires dominating our economy, our speech and our elections. We are now at gilded age levels of inequality and if you project forward the trends, individual billionaires will be more powerful than major governments in 50 to 100 years time. When you combine that with inheritance, we will eventually end up with an economy where meritocracy ends as money, power and success depends more on being in the proximity various family dynasies and their corporations than merit, intelligence or work ethic.
Perhaps. I'm always a little bit wary of this 'Soon we'll be living in Corporate World' idea.
As you correctly point out, very clever individuals obtain a huge amount of wealth, but when they pass it down, there children are often not as clever, and often not as motivated (I've seen plenty of 'I don't need to study, daddy will sort me out' types, whilst they do a line of coke in the classroom).
Daddy does sort them out, but then when Daddy dies, they're unable to avoid being exploited by various 'advisers' who just rob them blind and eventually take their empire apart, broken up into smaller parts.
Individuals can become the 'richest person in the world' rubbish, but upon their inevitable death, their empire is ripped apart by infighting, lawyer fees, 'advisers' and others.
It may be an old example, but wasn't Anna Nicole Smith elderly husband's empire taken apart this way? He died in the 1990s. She and his eldest spent fifteen years in court fighting for inheritance. Both have now died anyway and what's left of J. Howard Marshall's original billions? Not much I suspect.
Clogs to clogs in three generations!
I think that was the original line, better than the one I was thinking of:
The first generation make the money, the second generation just about tick over, and the third generation squander it.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
Plenty of other MPs are; being elected doesn’t absolve you of professional constraints. And note her rise in government involved appointment to the post of Attorney General (a law post she did not distinguish during her incumbency.)
It should if those constraints are politically motivated.
Er, how can they be? They were prior to political careers. A doctor can't advocate mass euthanasia and then complain the GMC was politically motivated with foresight.
Hard to escape the conclusion that politicians who are members of professional bodies should be exempt from the rules that govern other members. That's not a step forward in my eyes.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
It doesn't in law, because the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil trials.
For example, Harold Loughans was acquitted of murdering Rose Robinson in Portsmouth in 1943. In 1961 Loughans sued Odhams Press because he claimed the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel, J. J. Casswell, implied he was guilty. But the jury found the implication was justified on the balance of probabilities.
And most of those I originally mentioned have not had a civil verdict against them either
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Some consistency please.
Perhaps TSE can offer to host Andrew at his plush pad? I am sure they would get along famously! He might even bring Fergie along too!
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
A bit like the US there’s expected to be a shift to KK as the results come in from the big cities. However that’s a pretty big lead so far.
Good to see even Turkey has the conservative rural v urban liberal divide
It just goes to show that social differences within a country are as important as citizenship of that country. Remember that next time your party are thumping the nationalist drum.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Some consistency please.
I am consistent, I've been raised to make sure your first ten priorities in life is that you put family first.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Some consistency please.
Coincidentally I've just learnt the word hyperparasitism.
Biden now tied with Trump on their approval rating 843 days into their Presidency at 42.4% each.
Only Carter at 37% 843 days in had a worse approval rating at this stage of their Presidency than Trump and Biden since polling records began. He like Trump was a one term President who lost after only one term of his party in the White House https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?cid=rrpromo
France and Germany not exactly shining lights of freedom there either.
Still want to rejoin the EU?
I don't know about France but I know Germany has strict laws on Holocaust denialism/minimisation which contributes to this score.
I would be far more concerned about why Britain and France have the scores they do - bearing in mind that we don't have the Holocaust laws that Germany does.
Sometimes there can be quirks.
I remember a few years ago we tumbled down some Press Freedom Index where we ended up down with the despots.
Turns out this index was using all the investigations/arrests/convictions/sentencing related to phone hacking as an assault on press freedom.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
It doesn't in law, because the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil trials.
For example, Harold Loughans was acquitted of murdering Rose Robinson in Portsmouth in 1943. In 1961 Loughans sued Odhams Press because he claimed the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel, J. J. Casswell, implied he was guilty. But the jury found the implication was justified on the balance of probabilities.
And most of those I originally mentioned have not had a civil verdict against them either
Nobody said any of them did.
What you claimed was that an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically made an accusation of guilt false.
Of course it doesn't. Get someone to explain it if you really don't understand, but don't try to obfuscate. People aren't as stupid as you think.
Restricting the policy to citizens of countries that have reciprocal voting rights I think means the Irish & nobody else
Well, I doubt starmer is going to take away voting rights from Commonwealth citizens.
(Fun fact: brits in Ireland can vote for the Prime minister, but not for the President, because Irish in Britain can't vote for the Monarch so it wouldn't be reciprocal)
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Interesting take from a Russian volunteer in Bakhmut. Ukrainians have no ammunition issues - nor lack of drones. If they meet resistance, they pull back, smash up the area for a while, then have another go. The contrast with the Russian approach to taking the place is stark.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
I’m not suggesting forcing them to use other platforms. I think they are a natural monopoly. So they should be regulated in terms of the potential returns. Additionally the have a potential deleterious impact on society (more so than other media) so that should be regulated too. Properly fair and balanced as it were 😉
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Some consistency please.
Perhaps TSE can offer to host Andrew at his plush pad? I am sure they would get along famously! He might even bring Fergie along too!
I'd have thought Leon would get on well with Andrew. Aren't Eugenie and her Tequila salesman husband living in Frogmore? And Harry stays there when he pays a flying visit to this country for one of his court appearances. It could get crowded.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Nah, I don't like Braverman at all but this is bullshit.No one else is asked to make such choices. She won't be a politician for ever and will then want, I assume, to return to being a barrister. Why should she have to remove herself from the system simply for exercising her right to free speech which is fundamental to political activity.
No one else? Other politicians are also barristers. Other politicians also have other jobs that have concomitant codes of conduct.
If she wants to return to being a barrister later in her career, presumably she could just re-register as a barrister, going through the usual processes.
Barristers have a code of conduct. If you feel this conflicts with a right to free speech, take it up with the barristers. Why should Braverman get special treatment? If there’s a problem, doesn’t it affect all barristers?
it’s not the principle of a code.
If she broke the law, for example, it would be fine for the bar council to take action.
But “conduct unbecoming”? That’s entire a subjective catch all for when they know someone is dodgy but can’t prove it. And it’s wrong to use that against an elected politician (or anyone) for exercising their right to free speech
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Seems to me if anything he has treated him too well to date. And he has offered him an alternative. I thought you were always moaning about parasites and yet now when it suits your political views you claim he is some sort of victim.
Some consistency please.
Perhaps TSE can offer to host Andrew at his plush pad? I am sure they would get along famously! He might even bring Fergie along too!
I'd have thought Leon would get on well with Andrew. Aren't Eugenie and her Tequila salesman husband living in Frogmore? And Harry stays there when he pays a flying visit to this country for one of his court appearances. It could get crowded.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
"The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation."
Pity, he was an energetic, traditional Bishop on the more socially conservative wing of the Church with great charisma who would have been a great choice for the first Black Archbishop of Canterbury. In the circumstances though right the Bishop of Newcastle and Church of England removed him from his role as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newcastle until the review's conclusions can be fully examined
"energetic traditional Bishop"
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
Not all those accused of abuse are abusers. Of course we need proper safeguarding but we also don't need the Salem witch trials either, see the awful way Lord Bramall, Paul Gambaccini, Sir Cliff Richard, Bill Roache and Leon Brittan amongst others were falsely accused
"falsely accused" is a bit strong in some cases. A lack of conviction means legally innocent, but that doesn't automatically make the accusations false.
It does in law
It doesn't in law, because the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil trials.
For example, Harold Loughans was acquitted of murdering Rose Robinson in Portsmouth in 1943. In 1961 Loughans sued Odhams Press because he claimed the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel, J. J. Casswell, implied he was guilty. But the jury found the implication was justified on the balance of probabilities.
And most of those I originally mentioned have not had a civil verdict against them either
Nobody said any of them did.
What you claimed was that an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically made an accusation of guilt false.
Of course it doesn't. Get someone to explain it if you really don't understand, but don't try to obfuscate. People aren't as stupid as you think.
More precisely, he was saying the accusation was false. The accusation isn't of guilt, it's that someone did something specific (e.g. he touched me in a private place). Instances when the accusation is true but no conviction happens: - statute of limitations or clever loophole - offender dies before trial - complainant withdraws from process - jury incorrectly finds not guilty - plea bargain on a lesser offence - police / prosecutor incompetence, indifference, or corruption and possibly more.
Jumping straight from "no conviction" to "allegation was false" is an assumption that harms the real victims who have failed to get justice which is why we should stick to saying what is truly known, which is that no conviction has happened and that the accused is therefore innocent.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
Presumably they are not DIRECTLY comparable though - comparing the partial count in 2023 with the final results in 2018?
Not remotely comparable. One fascinating feature seems to be that separate companies report results as they come in, a bit like US networks “calling” a state. And there are so far huge differences.
Comments
That was widely criticised across the political spectrum
I expect that libel falls into some special category for some reason?
I might suggest 'traditional' attitudes within the clergy - both CofE and Catholic - are exactly what allowed these abuses to continue for centuries.
I expect the kitchen person will be along to mention Hunter Biden's penis again shortly
She's admitted she can't process data correctly, has repeatedly given such poor legal advice that her employer has lost court cases and a great deal of public prestige, and is a dreadful speaker.
She would be to good legal process what Jeremy Corbyn was to Labour's parliamentary position - bad, or catastrophic.
He’s also a very canny operator on the foreign policy stage. He’s turned Turkey into a major regional player. A country that cannot be ignored. A country Putin is forced to please - if he can
At the same time he is a bit of a demagogue with a dash of islamism, and he’s mismanaged the economy of late
I don’t like him but a lot of Turks genuinely do - it’s not all propaganda. And Turkey does not feel like a police state, nor is it dangerous or desperate in Turkish cities
Hmmm
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Others clearly would go full Putin if they could.
Also the goalkeepers are smaller. Which tends to make for more goals (in general, if not today in particular.)
As you correctly point out, very clever individuals obtain a huge amount of wealth, but when they pass it down, there children are often not as clever, and often not as motivated (I've seen plenty of 'I don't need to study, daddy will sort me out' types, whilst they do a line of coke in the classroom).
Daddy does sort them out, but then when Daddy dies, they're unable to avoid being exploited by various 'advisers' who just rob them blind and eventually take their empire apart, broken up into smaller parts.
Individuals can become the 'richest person in the world' rubbish, but upon their inevitable death, their empire is ripped apart by infighting, lawyer fees, 'advisers' and others.
It may be an old example, but wasn't Anna Nicole Smith elderly husband's empire taken apart this way?
He died in the 1990s. She and his eldest spent fifteen years in court fighting for inheritance. Both have now died anyway and what's left of J. Howard Marshall's original billions? Not much I suspect.
Falsely accused tends to imply malice.
https://twitter.com/sonciupoklonus/status/1657519290851942401
For example, it's extremely likely that Al Capone was involved in several murders for which he was never convicted. Anybody who accused him of those murders was probably being truthful.
And note her rise in government involved appointment to the post of Attorney General (a law post she did not distinguish during her incumbency.)
Still want to rejoin the EU?
https://www.yenisafak.com/en/secim-cumhurbaskanligi-2023/secim-sonuclari
9% counted Erdogan leads 59-35
Boris Johnson’s chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, has confirmed his bid to become an MP, with his name placed on the list of Conservative candidates for the next general election.
Lord Frost had earlier suggested he was ready to drop his peerage in hope of securing a Commons seat, but only if he could secure a safe constituency.
On Sunday he confirmed Tory officials had accepted his bid to join the party’s candidate list, but said he is not linked to a specific seat.
He said in a statement: “I am grateful to the party authorities for accepting my application as a potential Conservative candidate for the House of Commons, the centre of our national political life.
“I have not yet applied for any seat and am considering my next steps. Meanwhile I look forward to campaigning for the party and for Conservative principles in the months to come.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/lord-frost-confirms-bid-to-become-a-tory-mp?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Crikey!
From the muppets who brought you Boris and, hilariously, Truss.
The only higher turnouts I've seen would be North Korea.
Hopefully not a late 'surge' of undecideds for Erdogan.
‘Knives out’ for Prince Andrew as King ‘demands’ he leave Windsor home
Duke of York ‘fears the royals may turn off the utilities to get him out’ since he is ‘refusing to budge’ from home of 20 years
The Duke of York is understood to be refusing to leave Royal Lodge, putting him on a collision course with his brother.
He is said to be unwilling to vacate the 98-acre Windsor property, his home of more than 20 years, at the King’s request.
It comes after the newly crowned monarch made a cut to the Duke’s annual allowance of £249,000 earlier this year, effectively pricing him out of the running costs of the 30 room home.
The Duke, who relies on the allowance since he left front-line royal duties, moved into the Grade-II listed house in Windsor Great Park following the death of the Queen Mother in 2002, taking on a 75-year lease.
But he was forced to step down as a working member of the family in 2019 over his association with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has since been residing in his Windsor home, mostly remaining out of the public eye.
A friend of the Duke told the Mail on Sunday that he is in low spirits and “refusing to budge” from the property, which is understood to have been earmarked for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.
One friend told the newspaper: “He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?”
They added: “He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/14/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-king-charles-wales-windsor/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
First news expected very soon.
He’s going viral with children’s songs done in the style of centrist dad bands. Sounds bad right? But the production values of the videos, music and lyrics are so good some are arguably better than the original.
For a taster here’s “you are my sunshine” sung in the style of Mumford and Sons.
https://www.tiktok.com/@ksrhoads/video/7226348534335851818
The Dylan version of Old Macdonald has extremely good lyrics.
Warning there’s a Radiohead version of baby shark on there too.
Priests to carry ID cards that reveal if they are sex offenders
Abuse survivors describe traffic light system for clergy as one of the ‘Catholic Church’s top three most stupid ideas’
Priests in France will be required to carry QR codes that the public can scan in order to check if they have been struck off as part of a sexual abuse clampdown.
The new wallet-sized ID cards will, after being scanned by a mobile phone, bring up a green, orange or red light depending on the priest’s status and career history.
The new system announced at the French Bishops’ Conference is designed to make the church more transparent but has been criticised as frivolous by some sex abuse survivor groups.
The ID card’s main function is to show whether a priest is qualified to lead mass or hear confession, but the code also discloses whether the priest has been stripped of clerical status.
The card does not explicitly state why a priest has been stripped of that status, but the red colour code would serve as an early warning signal that they may have faced sexual abuse charges.
This means the cards can in effect be used by Catholics to find out whether bishops, deacons and priests in their area are possible sex offenders, broadcaster France 24 reported.
The orange light may simply indicate that a recently-ordained priest is not fully qualified to lead a mass yet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/14/france-catholic-church-sex-abuse-id-cards-qr-code-priests/
Their version was better anyway............
For example, Harold Loughans was acquitted of murdering Rose Robinson in Portsmouth in 1943. In 1961 Loughans sued Odhams Press because he claimed the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel, J. J. Casswell, implied he was guilty. But the jury found the implication was justified on the balance of probabilities.
Some consistency please.
The first generation make the money, the second generation just about tick over, and the third generation squander it.
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1657709974649176064
https://twitter.com/qaantum/status/1657775690844889088?s=46
Has the count been subcontracted to some friendly Russian friends of Putin?
Only Carter at 37% 843 days in had a worse approval rating at this stage of their Presidency than Trump and Biden since polling records began. He like Trump was a one term President who lost after only one term of his party in the White House
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?cid=rrpromo
I remember a few years ago we tumbled down some Press Freedom Index where we ended up down with the despots.
Turns out this index was using all the investigations/arrests/convictions/sentencing related to phone hacking as an assault on press freedom.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
% counted, Erdogan 2023, Erdogan 2018
Turkey 17% counted, Erdogan 56% (KK 38%), 53% (final Rd 1 result 2018)
Ankara 10 55 52
Istanbul 8 49 50
Gumushane 43 74 77
Bayburt 66 81 82
Burdur 35 55 54
What you claimed was that an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically made an accusation of guilt false.
Of course it doesn't. Get someone to explain it if you really don't understand, but don't try to obfuscate. People aren't as stupid as you think.
(Fun fact: brits in Ireland can vote for the Prime minister, but not for the President, because Irish in Britain can't vote for the Monarch so it wouldn't be reciprocal)
Quite a few opposition supporters on Twitter seemingly rather happy with the early results despite appearances.
Erdogan now at 55% after 19% counted, dropping again.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
https://youtu.be/V6zRPf-up74
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1657675029813796866
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
Aren't Eugenie and her Tequila salesman husband living in Frogmore? And Harry stays there when he pays a flying visit to this country for one of his court appearances. It could get crowded.
If she broke the law, for example, it would be fine for the bar council to take action.
But “conduct unbecoming”? That’s entire a subjective catch all for when they know someone is dodgy but can’t prove it. And it’s wrong to use that against an elected politician (or anyone) for exercising their right to free speech
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
Instances when the accusation is true but no conviction happens:
- statute of limitations or clever loophole
- offender dies before trial
- complainant withdraws from process
- jury incorrectly finds not guilty
- plea bargain on a lesser offence
- police / prosecutor incompetence, indifference, or corruption
and possibly more.
Jumping straight from "no conviction" to "allegation was false" is an assumption that harms the real victims who have failed to get justice which is why we should stick to saying what is truly known, which is that no conviction has happened and that the accused is therefore innocent.
@trtworld
·
2m
Türkiye has voted for the country’s next president. Here are the latest results as of 0715 PM:
Recep Tayyip Erdogan: 54.63%
Muharrem Ince: 0.56%
Kemal Kilicdaroglu: 39.40%
Sinan Ogan: 5.41%
But I know value when I see it. Still a buyer at 2.9