‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
I’m not sure that it would be possible to drive Sarah Fergusson loopy…
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
Because Charles will be the one employing him.
Why? Charles doesn’t see an appropriate role for him in the new set up
If he gets his military pension and a fair sized house (free), surely he can just spend his time souping up old sports cars?
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.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
Some years ago, in a judges chambers, she clearly stated that she would enforce her judgements on one party in a case and would not enforce them on the other party.
I think I should have reported that to the Law Society - should I?
I’d have thought the Master of the Rolls pr the LCD (whoever oversees the judges). I think it would call into question her fitness to perform the roll.
It was rather startling to see a judge saying (pretty much) that “I am biased to one side in this case, structurally. No matter the facts.”
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
I’m not sure that it would be possible to drive Sarah Fergusson loopy…
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
Because Charles will be the one employing him.
Why? Charles doesn’t see an appropriate role for him in the new set up
If he gets his military pension and a fair sized house (free), surely he can just spend his time souping up old sports cars?
Old sports cars? I'd have thought Andrew would be more interested in younger models, but what do I know?
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
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
The code should be applied equally to all barristers. Why should Braverman be treated differently?
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.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
And if it's upheld, good.
The Bar Council is designed to regulate the legal industry
Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
He’s on his late 60s. Retirement is fine. And he can find ways to fill his time
My father is in his mid 70s and he works full time; if he didn’t, he'd drive my Mum loopy.
I’m not sure that it would be possible to drive Sarah Fergusson loopy…
It’s good for Andrew to fill his time. I just don’t understand why that is Charles’ responsibility to organise
Because Charles will be the one employing him.
Why? Charles doesn’t see an appropriate role for him in the new set up
If he gets his military pension and a fair sized house (free), surely he can just spend his time souping up old sports cars?
Would bore me personally, but if that’s what he wants to go then all power to him
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 barristers can’t stop her being an MP. Her status as an MP is up to the electorate. Nothing here is challenging her status as an MP.
If the barristers’ code of conduct has ill-defined terms, that doesn’t sound like a good code. However, I find it difficult to believe that barristers of all people would have a code of conduct with ill-defined terms! Maybe they have a better grasp of these matters than you do?
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
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
The code should be applied equally to all barristers. Why should Braverman be treated differently?
“Conduct unbecoming” is the issue, not the code. A legal speech or opinion completely unconnected to Braverman’s role as a barrister is no business of the Bar Council
I fundamentally object to the politicisation of the regulatory framework for partisan reasons
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
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.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
And if it's upheld, good.
The Bar Council is designed to regulate the legal industry
Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
You may well think that, but there's a strong argument that somebody needs to defend professional standards in this important role. If you need the services of a barrister, you'll want to be reassured that there is a minimum standard to which they adhere, and that they don't have a history of, for example, making statements that imply prejudice on the grounds of criminality among different ethnic groups.
I don't know whether her comments cross that threshold but prima facie there is a case to be considered.
Personally, I think that certain professions should have professional standards that protect vulnerable service users or service users who are at risk from discriminatory practitioners. Those industries such as law and health were the outcomes may affect life and liberty. Your mileage may vary, but I'm grateful for the existence of a standards body that looks beyond merely "was this illegal?"
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.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
And if it's upheld, good.
The Bar Council is designed to regulate the legal industry
Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
The regulator is under a duty, set by the Government, to investigate these complaints. The Bar Council and the SRA (the enforcement arm of the Law Society but they keep that quiet) have always regulated speech that could bring their respective professions into disrepute. It’s in their terms of reference that are agreed with the Ministry of Justice. Practicing lawyers accept this as part of being in a lucrative profession.
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Oh there will be a big move towards the opposition because the reporting is designed to ensure Erdogan favouring areas release their figures first.
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 barristers can’t stop her being an MP. Her status as an MP is up to the electorate. Nothing here is challenging her status as an MP.
If the barristers’ code of conduct has ill-defined terms, that doesn’t sound like a good code. However, I find it difficult to believe that barristers of all people would have a code of conduct with ill-defined terms!
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.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
It is, at most, an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate *barrister* discourse. Nothing in any of this stops Braverman from continuing to say the same things.
I saw a friend the other day and asked her about her political campaigning work. She’s had to withdraw from it, because she’s now getting quite senior in the civil service and civil servants cannot be politically active. Is this trying to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse? No, it’s saying that certain jobs have a special relationship with political discourse. If my friend wants to go out campaigning, she can, but she has to choose a different profession.
If Braverman wants to spout racist rhetoric, she can. Depending on the outcome of this complaint, it may be that she can go on spouting racist rhetoric, but she can’t do so as a barrister.(Or maybe the complaint will be chucked out — I’ve no idea of it’s merits.)
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
Matt Barrett, Leo Varadkar's husband, causing minor diplomatic embarrassment by posting on Instagram from Westminster Abbey during Charles' coronation.
From the order of service: “The queen’s sceptre and rod are brought from the altar by the Right Rev and Right Hon the Lord Chartres GCVO and the Right Rev Rose Hudson Wilkin CD MBE, Bishop of Dover. The queen touches them in turn,” Sounds like the script to a good night out, tbh
Right Rev James Newcome. Clerk of the Closet. Had this job until my early 20s .
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
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
The code should be applied equally to all barristers. Why should Braverman be treated differently?
“Conduct unbecoming” is the issue, not the code. A legal speech or opinion completely unconnected to Braverman’s role as a barrister is no business of the Bar Council
I fundamentally object to the politicisation of the regulatory framework for partisan reasons
If she doesn’t want to be regulated by the Bar Council she needs to stop being a barrister. Apply to be disbarred. It’s that simple. Lawyers, including me, are regulated in all aspects of their conduct. We have to accept it.
I too have greened up on Turkey. It's no doubt earlier than optimal but stakes are small and I have other things to do than keep an eye on the count in case it moves against me. Good luck all.
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Let's not pretend there is a level playing field in this election. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
‘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.”
Do you remember when you said “I hate squatters” on the same issue two months ago?
I do hate squatters but I also think looking after your family is also important.
It is possible to hold two or more distinct views on a particular story.
You can also look after your brother in fewer than 30 rooms and 98 acres
Don’t pretend you’d support your King keeping him there
I guess nuance doesn't exist in your world.
Not sure why you're getting annoyed - I assumed you'd only said it to get a rise out of people anyway?
For me, I don't think Prince Andrew deserves to stay in a massive draughty pile (if deserving is the word), but I do think he needs to be found an occupation. Even prisoners get to sew mailbags. It seems he and Charles really aren't fond of each other.
Andrew could be given a job cleaning toilets in Glasgow, with a small Council flat. It would be a hard life, but an honest one.
He says he's been told Erdoğan instructed the Anadolu Agency and state broadcaster TRT to "keep the difference between him and Kılıçdaroğlu at around 10 percent until I make a statement". pic.twitter.com/J30YyIykON
He says he's been told Erdoğan instructed the Anadolu Agency and state broadcaster TRT to "keep the difference between him and Kılıçdaroğlu at around 10 percent until I make a statement". pic.twitter.com/J30YyIykON
It does feel quite Trumpian. Get your votes counted first so if the opposition overtakes Erdogan you can sow doubts in the public's mind as to the validity.
It does feel quite Trumpian. Get your votes counted first so if the opposition overtakes Erdogan you can sow doubts in the public's mind as to the validity.
I mean - I’d be shocked if he just accepts the result and goes quietly.
For Turkey’s sake, I hope things are relatively peaceful. Such a fabulous country.
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
The code should be applied equally to all barristers. Why should Braverman be treated differently?
“Conduct unbecoming” is the issue, not the code. A legal speech or opinion completely unconnected to Braverman’s role as a barrister is no business of the Bar Council
I fundamentally object to the politicisation of the regulatory framework for partisan reasons
If she doesn’t want to be regulated by the Bar Council she needs to stop being a barrister. Apply to be disbarred. It’s that simple. Lawyers, including me, are regulated in all aspects of their conduct. We have to accept it.
She could also start to behave. An option that no-one, especially her, seems to have considered.
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Oh there will be a big move towards the opposition because the reporting is designed to ensure Erdogan favouring areas release their figures first.
Do you still think so?
Erdogan still at 50.7% with 77% counted, so that big move needs to get a shift on, as Jodie Whittaker might have said.
The way it's been trending, it feels like he's going to be very close to the 50%.
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
The code should be applied equally to all barristers. Why should Braverman be treated differently?
“Conduct unbecoming” is the issue, not the code. A legal speech or opinion completely unconnected to Braverman’s role as a barrister is no business of the Bar Council
I fundamentally object to the politicisation of the regulatory framework for partisan reasons
If she doesn’t want to be regulated by the Bar Council she needs to stop being a barrister. Apply to be disbarred. It’s that simple. Lawyers, including me, are regulated in all aspects of their conduct. We have to accept it.
There is a risk of getting excited. Anyone in any circumstances can make a complaint to someone about anyone. There are very specific routes by which anyone can complain about me. That is simply a function of a free, liberal and accountable society. That is all that has happened. It will go nowhere.
He says he's been told Erdoğan instructed the Anadolu Agency and state broadcaster TRT to "keep the difference between him and Kılıçdaroğlu at around 10 percent until I make a statement". pic.twitter.com/J30YyIykON
I know the fact we've had three PMs in the last year seems funny. But it's also a sign that the system works, however chaotically. It's just a shame there was not a GE to go with it...
An authoritarian leader who's been in power for 20 years so the answer is very likely no.
That doesn't mean Erdogan can't win the most votes and that the declared votes won't be genuine (so long as he wins). But it's not a level playing field. I'd like to know what sort of international observers are present.
PS - struck by this: "In a disconcertingly gothic footnote that Mary Shelley would have appreciated, the melting of glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai border into a vast saline lake has revealed viruses dated to 15,000 years ago and said to be unlike any yet known to contemporary science."
I see that there is a lot of discussion at the moment regarding the findings of 'civil' court cases as proof of guilt. But this is a bad path to be going on.
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
It's imperfect. The time on State TV figures given earlier in the thread are quite stark.
Certainly still freer and fairer than in Russia. My guess is that Erdogan is determined to stay in power, but only wants to do what is necessary to achieve that result - a narrow result is sufficient.
But clearly he's not willing to defend the process to give the electorate a fair choice, and it's to be doubted that he would accept losing.
Accepting the democratic process and ensuring there is a peaceful transfer of power is an incredible thing. We often see PMs who stay in office too long - clearly it is a difficult job to walk away from once you have it - so we should do all we can to encourage respect of that process and the legitimacy of participants on all sides of the democratic process.
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Oh there will be a big move towards the opposition because the reporting is designed to ensure Erdogan favouring areas release their figures first.
Do you still think so?
Erdogan still at 50.7% with 77% counted, so that big move needs to get a shift on, as Jodie Whittaker might have said.
The way it's been trending, it feels like he's going to be very close to the 50%.
Feels like about 49-45. If the minor candidates split 25-75 then it will finish up perhaps 50.5-49.5. So right that Erdoğan is narrow favourite but second round could be very close.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I see that there is a lot of discussion at the moment regarding the findings of 'civil' court cases as proof of guilt. But this is a bad path to be going on.
For instance, see this guardian article from 2006 about a murder of a child in Newcastle, in 1993. The suspect in the trial was acquitted in court on the direction of the judge due to problems with the police interviews where the suspect admitted the murder.
"George Heron, then 24, lived on the same estate, having moved in only weeks earlier with his sister. At first Heron denied knowing Nikki, but he admitted he did after witnesses came forward to say they had seen him with her on several occasions. There was other evidence. The blade of a knife recovered from his lodgings matched the stab wounds. Blood splatters were found on Heron's shoe and other clothing. His sister told police that on returning home on the night of Nikki's murder, Heron had gone straight to the bathroom where, uncharacteristically, he spent "a good half hour" washing both himself and his clothes. Although Heron had at first denied going out that evening, four separate witnesses saw a man at the Boar's Head and Clarendon public houses fitting his description. The man was seen buying cheese-and-onion crisps - Nikki's favourite - which police believed the killer used to lure Nikki into the building where she died".
Then the bereaved mother pursued a civil case against the acquitted suspect:
"In 1994 Sharon took out a civil action against Heron, suing him for damages for "battery of a child resulting in her death". Heron did not contest the case which Sharon won. The court awarded her £7,000, but she has never received any money. "I had to do something," she says. "After the trial the police never apologised or explained what went wrong. I felt abandoned."
It all sounds as though the case has been proved and the perpetrator has been let off on a technicality due to police failings. The mother would not let the situation go however and kept on at the police to keep investigating the case through reassessing the forensic evidence.
They did this, but eventually found that Heron was not the killer - it was a different person completely - who has just been tried and found guilty of the murder.
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 problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
PS - struck by this: "In a disconcertingly gothic footnote that Mary Shelley would have appreciated, the melting of glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai border into a vast saline lake has revealed viruses dated to 15,000 years ago and said to be unlike any yet known to contemporary science."
Reminds me of the newly flourishing vegetation that appeared on the artificial islands that were created when the Øresund Bridge between Copenhagen and Malmö was built. It came from dormant seeds that had been submerged for hundreds of years.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
PS - struck by this: "In a disconcertingly gothic footnote that Mary Shelley would have appreciated, the melting of glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai border into a vast saline lake has revealed viruses dated to 15,000 years ago and said to be unlike any yet known to contemporary science."
Reminds me of the newly flourishing vegetation that appeared on the artificial islands that were created when the Øresund Bridge between Copenhagen and Malmö was built. It came from dormant seeds that had been submerged for hundreds of years.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
not plausible - especially as they close the polls so early (5pm local time)
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
That kind of level sounds impossible. If compulsory voting cannot get that high what level of inhuman enthusiasm could?
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
He's beaten off the ability for any sort of coup though hasn't he? In a 50/50 oreven 60/40 style situation a bit of violence doesn't seem catastrophic for a leader.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
not plausible - especially as they close the polls so early (5pm local time)
Agreed. Too many people are on more than one register for perfectly legitimate reasons to reach levels like that. Students and young workers move around a lot and of course there is the dead and the senile. It’s impossible
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
not plausible - especially as they close the polls so early (5pm local time)
They had something on the Irish news about quake survivors returning to their ruined home towns to vote - suggesting it's not exactly been made easy for them to re-register to vote somewhere else without travelling.
That should massively depress turnout, so seems logical to assume that many of their votes have been cast on their behalf.
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Oh there will be a big move towards the opposition because the reporting is designed to ensure Erdogan favouring areas release their figures first.
Do you still think so?
Erdogan still at 50.7% with 77% counted, so that big move needs to get a shift on, as Jodie Whittaker might have said.
The way it's been trending, it feels like he's going to be very close to the 50%.
Might almost be better for him to come just under. He could surely win the run off, especially if he wanted to do a bit of leaning, and it would be less suspicious than coming in at a handful of votes over 50.0%, just the amount needed.
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Oh there will be a big move towards the opposition because the reporting is designed to ensure Erdogan favouring areas release their figures first.
Do you still think so?
Erdogan still at 50.7% with 77% counted, so that big move needs to get a shift on, as Jodie Whittaker might have said.
The way it's been trending, it feels like he's going to be very close to the 50%.
Feels like about 49-45. If the minor candidates split 25-75 then it will finish up perhaps 50.5-49.5. So right that Erdoğan is narrow favourite but second round could be very close.
Respectfully, disagree - I think Erdogan is the clear favourite for the runoff. He'll probably have above 49% from round 1 and the candidate below is going to get 5%, and I think most of his votes will go to Erdogan.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
That kind of level sounds impossible. If compulsory voting cannot get that high what level of inhuman enthusiasm could?
The only explanation for that level of engagement would be a nation determined to punish Erdogan for the fiasco of the response to the earthquake and the corruption that made the buildings fall like dominos.
But more likely it is Putin's guys ballot-stuffing to keep him in place.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
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 problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
The thing is he was popular in the countryside but that has been destroyed by the earthquake and the discovery of the corruption that has resulted in a lot of earthquake proof buildings were anything but.
There is definitely enough to think that this election has been stolen...
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
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 problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
This has the smell of a stolen election. Doesn't feel good.
I think it stinks.
Just step back for a minute.
In what kind of a democracy does someone get re-elected who has been in power for 20 years and has presided over a collapsing economy with hyper-inflation, not to mention the catastrophic response to the earthquake?
To all intents and purposes if Erdogan "wins" this is a stolen election and Turkey is just another authoritarian state ruled by a strongman.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
Big move to Erdogan on BF, now at 2.3 - what's the betting that the official results site shows him at 50.1% for the final result?
It's why I haven't played bigger on the market.
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
Well yes, but the direction of the fix is pretty clear. But kudos for cashing out when you did anyway.
Ta. I'm thinking of going back in.
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
He's still at 1.74, now at 51.1% with 69% counted so gut feel now is he will fall just short tonight. But unless there is a big move to KK with the last 30% of the count, I think the votes of the right-wing Ogan (currently 5%) will get him over the line in round 2.
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
Oh there will be a big move towards the opposition because the reporting is designed to ensure Erdogan favouring areas release their figures first.
Do you still think so?
Erdogan still at 50.7% with 77% counted, so that big move needs to get a shift on, as Jodie Whittaker might have said.
The way it's been trending, it feels like he's going to be very close to the 50%.
Feels like about 49-45. If the minor candidates split 25-75 then it will finish up perhaps 50.5-49.5. So right that Erdoğan is narrow favourite but second round could be very close.
Respectfully, disagree - I think Erdogan is the clear favourite for the runoff. He'll probably have above 49% from round 1 and the candidate below is going to get 5%, and I think most of his votes will go to Erdogan.
Plus there's all the issues about the vote counting/reporting, it not being a fully free and fair election, etc.
Gut feel is that Erdogan wins at least 51-52% in round 2 and I think the current 50% return on Betfair still feels like free money to me.
It probably is but it all makes punters nervous.
Just checked Betfair rules. They'll primarily settle on the results as announced on ysk.gov.tr and won't take into account any changes after market settlement, as you'd expect of course.
Probably helps Erdoğan punters a bit. In theory, they could void if it looks really iffy, but that wouldn't help KK.
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 problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
I agree if it’s genuine but 96% turnout suggests stuffed ballot boxes to me.
not plausible - especially as they close the polls so early (5pm local time)
They had something on the Irish news about quake survivors returning to their ruined home towns to vote - suggesting it's not exactly been made easy for them to re-register to vote somewhere else without travelling.
That should massively depress turnout, so seems logical to assume that many of their votes have been cast on their behalf.
That's just being polite. Who doesn't like to be taken care of?
Comments
Whole thing may be a bit of a fix.
TRT World
@trtworld
·
12m
Türkiye has voted for the country's next president. Here are the latest results as of 0900 PM:
Recep Tayyip Erdogan: 51.44%
Muharrem Ince: 0.51%
Kemal Kilicdaroglu: 42.73%
Sinan Ogan: 5.32%
Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
If the barristers’ code of conduct has ill-defined terms, that doesn’t sound like a good code. However, I find it difficult to believe that barristers of all people would have a code of conduct with ill-defined terms! Maybe they have a better grasp of these matters than you do?
If it's happening, then near evens for Erdogan seems a silly price now.
Modern Turkey is a big and proper grown-up. Let's see how it turns out.
I fundamentally object to the politicisation of the regulatory framework for partisan reasons
Also though ofc we will see if there is any fallout re counting/reporting discrepancies etc.
I don't know whether her comments cross that threshold but prima facie there is a case to be considered.
Personally, I think that certain professions should have professional standards that protect vulnerable service users or service users who are at risk from discriminatory practitioners. Those industries such as law and health were the outcomes may affect life and liberty. Your mileage may vary, but I'm grateful for the existence of a standards body that looks beyond merely "was this illegal?"
Erdoğan could be pulling all sorts of tricks here.
Like you say, let's wait and see.
Number of minutes for each candidate on Turkish state TV TRT:
Erdogan: 2880
Kilicdaroglu: 41
Anyone can throw dirt about.
The only real test of mettle is whether you make money out of it.
If the barristers’ code of conduct has ill-defined terms, that doesn’t sound like a good code. However, I find it difficult to believe that barristers of all people would have a code of conduct with ill-defined terms! It is, at most, an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate *barrister* discourse. Nothing in any of this stops Braverman from continuing to say the same things.
I saw a friend the other day and asked her about her political campaigning work. She’s had to withdraw from it, because she’s now getting quite senior in the civil service and civil servants cannot be politically active. Is this trying to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse? No, it’s saying that certain jobs have a special relationship with political discourse. If my friend wants to go out campaigning, she can, but she has to choose a different profession.
If Braverman wants to spout racist rhetoric, she can. Depending on the outcome of this complaint, it may be that she can go on spouting racist rhetoric, but she can’t do so as a barrister.(Or maybe the complaint will be chucked out — I’ve no idea of it’s merits.)
From the order of service: “The queen’s sceptre and rod are brought from the altar by the Right Rev and Right Hon the Lord Chartres GCVO and the Right Rev Rose Hudson Wilkin CD MBE, Bishop of Dover. The queen touches them in turn,” Sounds like the script to a good night out, tbh
Right Rev James Newcome. Clerk of the Closet. Had this job until my early 20s .
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/14/red-faces-in-ireland-over-coronation-quips-by-leo-varadkar-partner
Erdogan: 48.13%
Kilicdaroglu: 46.10%
Ogan: 5.33%
70% counted.
Hmm…
The results seem to vary so much though - so until Supreme Court announces final results, presumably lots of political games being played
For Turkey’s sake, I hope things are relatively peaceful. Such a fabulous country.
Erdogan still at 50.7% with 77% counted, so that big move needs to get a shift on, as Jodie Whittaker might have said.
The way it's been trending, it feels like he's going to be very close to the 50%.
Which does mean I approve of the Home Secretary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d'état_attempt
That doesn't mean Erdogan can't win the most votes and that the declared votes won't be genuine (so long as he wins). But it's not a level playing field. I'd like to know what sort of international observers are present.
Anyway an excellent, if lengthy, piece here by Simon Schama.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/13/simon-schama-foreign-bodies-book-extract-broken-relationship-humans-animals
PS - struck by this: "In a disconcertingly gothic footnote that Mary Shelley would have appreciated, the melting of glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai border into a vast saline lake has revealed viruses dated to 15,000 years ago and said to be unlike any yet known to contemporary science."
Certainly still freer and fairer than in Russia. My guess is that Erdogan is determined to stay in power, but only wants to do what is necessary to achieve that result - a narrow result is sufficient.
But clearly he's not willing to defend the process to give the electorate a fair choice, and it's to be doubted that he would accept losing.
Accepting the democratic process and ensuring there is a peaceful transfer of power is an incredible thing. We often see PMs who stay in office too long - clearly it is a difficult job to walk away from once you have it - so we should do all we can to encourage respect of that process and the legitimacy of participants on all sides of the democratic process.
Brave Sir Casino.
Erdogan 1.47 / 1.51
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/turkish-politics/turkish-presidential-election-2023/election-winner-betting-1.211349566
That should massively depress turnout, so seems logical to assume that many of their votes have been cast on their behalf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinan_Oğan
Plus there's all the issues about the vote counting/reporting, it not being a fully free and fair election, etc.
Gut feel is that Erdogan wins at least 51-52% in round 2 and I think the current 50% return on Betfair still feels like free money to me.
But more likely it is Putin's guys ballot-stuffing to keep him in place.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
There is definitely enough to think that this election has been stolen...
In what kind of a democracy does someone get re-elected who has been in power for 20 years and has presided over a collapsing economy with hyper-inflation, not to mention the catastrophic response to the earthquake?
To all intents and purposes if Erdogan "wins" this is a stolen election and Turkey is just another authoritarian state ruled by a strongman.
Looking good
Stubbornly staying above 50%.
Just checked Betfair rules. They'll primarily settle on the results as announced on ysk.gov.tr and won't take into account any changes after market settlement, as you'd expect of course.
Probably helps Erdoğan punters a bit. In theory, they could void if it looks really iffy, but that wouldn't help KK.