It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
He doesn't sound overly pompous at all. That's your spin on what is a logical point.
OT. I think OGH is right. A real danger for Rishi is being portrayed as "weak" by Starmer. Having a fight with Boris - a rapidly fading force anyway - helps to rebut that charge. He will have seen how badly John Major was damaged by Blair in the run up to 97.
Putting "a bit of stick about" has always been popular within the Tory party.
?? Anyway, the other advantage to Rishi is that in the event of a fistfight with Starmer during an election debate he can claim to have acted to remove Boris as leader while Sir Keir supinely supported Corbyn through two general elections.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
The more I read the more he strikes me as a complete tosser.
Meanwhile, Amazon have sent me an email recommending a "Unisex picnic blanket". I think I must be getting old.
Clearly I'm turning into @Leon or something - I initially read that as 'Uni sex picnic blanket' and started wondering what additional equipment students need these days for al fresco jiggy...
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
I agree (and I don’t think she should have received a custodial sentence).
The court has to be a step removed from lobbying or special pleading to those not directly involved in the case. The judge makes a good point that it would also have been clearly inappropriate for others to write in on the opposing side also.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Yep don't think it adds any value. The all important bit is in paragraphs 22-24.
Page 5 of 6
22. Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating features of your case, I consider that the appropriate sentence after trial would have been three years’ imprisonment.
24. For the offence of administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, I sentence you to 28 months’ imprisonment. Among the many tragedies in this case is that you did not indicate your guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in the magistrates’ court. Had that been done, the sentence of imprisonment that I am now obliged to pass would in law have been capable of being suspended
Basically if she had pleaded guilt earlier the reduction for the early guilty plea would have reduced the sentence below 2 years at which point it could have been suspended.
Because the sentence is 28 months it couldn't be suspended.
Meanwhile, Amazon have sent me an email recommending a "Unisex picnic blanket". I think I must be getting old.
My husband has been using Alexa to listen to county cricket on the radio. Ads for mobility aids, men's incontinence products and sherry incoming, no doubt...
Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.
But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.
This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things: That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned* That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**
*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine
**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job. Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.
Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?
From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.
Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?
The two situations are not remotely the same.
Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.
A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?
Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?
So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?
Like you, I detest the List System which removes the choice of MP from voters and gives it to party machines - just like FPTP.
Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, as in Ireland, puts the choice squarely in the hands of the voter. Candidates from the the same party have to compete with one another. The geographical link is maintained. And the results are broadly proportional.
Research it. You might be pleasantly surprised.
And each major party is pretty much guaranteed a seat in each constituency, so if you're the parties top representative in the area then you've pretty much got a seat for life.
In the UK major politicians like Michael Portillo can be ejected by the electorate. Had Boris Johnson not resigned he'd have probably been rejected from Uxbridge next time too.
Whereas in Ireland someone like Portillo or Boris can have enough votes from their own party to have a safe seat and who cares that most of the local electorate wanted somebody else?
Scottish system is crap , just means that lots of dross are elected to list as pals etc of the cliques running the show. Some of them you wonder if they are able to tie their own shoelaces. Example Murdo Fraser , failed to get elected every time yet has been an MSP since 2001. It is criminal. All teh parties are the same.
Just been to the village petrol station. The pumps all have signs on them that state "Due to Internet issues CASH ONLY TODAY!" I had to nurse the van into Loughborough to get fuel as the nearest cashpoint machine was further away than the next fuel station! Bloody cashless society, my arse!
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yeah a tragedy all round but I get the pour encourager les autres element of sentencing although also I get the feeling he would have been just as "happy" if she had plead (or indicated she would plead) guilty at the first available opportunity and he had been able to suspend the sentence.
One thing for sure is that, in whatever state of mind she was, she was determinedly and knowingly breaking the law.
And as the judge says if you disagree with the law lobby parliament, don't write letters to judges.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
OT. I think OGH is right. A real danger for Rishi is being portrayed as "weak" by Starmer. Having a fight with Boris - a rapidly fading force anyway - helps to rebut that charge. He will have seen how badly John Major was damaged by Blair in the run up to 97.
Putting "a bit of stick about" has always been popular within the Tory party.
Too bad "trying to govern sensibly" is not so popular.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is an Etonian as is the Prince of Wales, they aren't all investment bankers and corporate lawyers.
Even being a Tory MP requires some service to your constituents. Bear Grylls is also an Old Etonian and Chief Scout.
Not all Etonian PMs and MPs have been Tories either. Gladstone was a Liberal Old Etonian PM, Thorpe an Old Etonian Liberal Leader, Tam Dalyell a prominent Labour backbench MP and Old Etonian too
Yeah a tragedy all round but I get the pour encourager les autres element of sentencing although also I get the feeling he would have been just as "happy" if she had plead (or indicated she would plead) guilty at the first available opportunity and he had been able to suspend the sentence.
One thing for sure is that, in whatever state of mind she was, she was determinedly and knowingly breaking the law.
And as the judge says if you disagree with the law lobby parliament, don't write letters to judges.
That indicates to me that you think the judge believes she is guilty on the charge of child destruction. Now she almost certainly was. But that wasn't tested before the court. I think this will be the basis of appeal for sentence reduction.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
The 160-year-old antiquated law, and the guilty plea to it, was the idea of the suspect’s own defence lawyers, presumably because they thought they could use the different offence to argue for a lesser sentence.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
IANAL but just one other case, sentenced for a different conviction, in different circumstances, seems to me to be rather weak precedence to be acting upon.
Yes seeking to get the law changed is an option but given the lack of either substantial precedence or guidelines for this I fail to see why professionals giving their objective feedback before sentencing is unreasonable.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
But which law says a suspended sentence would have been possible with an earlier guilty plea but impossible in this case?
If the UK data continues to point towards a stronger than expected economic situation, we could end up ahead of the other European members of the G7. Germany is the sick man of Europe at the moment.
Too many forecasts are based on dodgy assumptions, then people with those dodgy assumptions use the forecasts as "proof" that they were correct - and outcomes be damned.
People assumed that Britain not joining the Euro would be a drag on growth, then assume Brexit is going to be a drag on growth and keep forecasting it will be, despite the outcomes being otherwise.
Despite not joining the Euro, despite Brexit, the UK grew faster than the Eurozone in both the 2000s and the 2010s. I fully expect the UK will grow faster in the 2020s too, but people who assume otherwise will keep modelling otherwise, and those models will keep being accepted by those who assume otherwise as fact.
In alternative news from to days Guardian.......
UK EXPORTS IN LAST DECADE WORSE THAN ANY G7 COUNTRY EXCEPT JAPAN.
UN Figures show British goods and services exports rose by 6% between 2012 and 2021 compared with 29.1% for the EU
Bloody statistics............
Suspect including 2022 would give a rather different picture:
I make that +31.8% for 2012-2022.
I've looked a bit more into this. I wondered whether comparable figures for other countries for 2022 weren't available.
The Guardian article cites House of Commons Library research, using UNCTAD figures, but, as normal with the Guardian, and reprehensible in my view, doesn't link to the source of the data. I can't find this research on the House of Commons Library website.
What I can find is some figures on UK trade that have UK exports lower in 2022 than in 2021, which contradicts the other figures posted in this thread.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
IANAL but just one other case, sentenced for a different conviction, in different circumstances, seems to me to be rather weak precedence to be acting upon.
Yes seeking to get the law changed is an option but given the lack of either substantial precedence or guidelines for this I fail to see why professionals giving their objective feedback before sentencing is unreasonable.
Better than no other cases. There were certainly similarities and he discounted that tariff to reflect the circumstances in this case.
I don't think it is unreasonable because that is part of the process of how the law eventually is changed - when professionals agitate for something, although we of course are wary of experts.
But I had the feeling that he (the judge) thought that it might open the floodgates for every interest group to write in to judges about the law in which case it would make judges' lives much more difficult and also is not the avenue for a change in the law.
Yeah a tragedy all round but I get the pour encourager les autres element of sentencing although also I get the feeling he would have been just as "happy" if she had plead (or indicated she would plead) guilty at the first available opportunity and he had been able to suspend the sentence.
One thing for sure is that, in whatever state of mind she was, she was determinedly and knowingly breaking the law.
And as the judge says if you disagree with the law lobby parliament, don't write letters to judges.
That indicates to me that you think the judge believes she is guilty on the charge of child destruction. Now she almost certainly was. But that wasn't tested before the court. I think this will be the basis of appeal for sentence reduction.
Comes down to whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the 1861 offence at the magistrates. I don't know how it works, but I suspect failing to admit guilt to that law at that stage is part of the equation. You don't have to be charged with a crime to admit to committing it.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
The 160-year-old antiquated law, and the guilty plea to it, was the idea of the suspect’s own defence lawyers, presumably because they thought they could use the different offence to argue for a lesser sentence.
And why shouldn't they?
If someone is convinced of involuntary manslaughter should they get the same sentence as murder? It's a different offence.
Meanwhile, Amazon have sent me an email recommending a "Unisex picnic blanket". I think I must be getting old.
Clearly I'm turning into @Leon or something - I initially read that as 'Uni sex picnic blanket' and started wondering what additional equipment students need these days for al fresco jiggy...
Kids today, huh? Just can't cope with thistles and the odd ant....
Yeah a tragedy all round but I get the pour encourager les autres element of sentencing although also I get the feeling he would have been just as "happy" if she had plead (or indicated she would plead) guilty at the first available opportunity and he had been able to suspend the sentence.
One thing for sure is that, in whatever state of mind she was, she was determinedly and knowingly breaking the law.
And as the judge says if you disagree with the law lobby parliament, don't write letters to judges.
That indicates to me that you think the judge believes she is guilty on the charge of child destruction. Now she almost certainly was. But that wasn't tested before the court. I think this will be the basis of appeal for sentence reduction.
Indeed! And it should be a successful appeal IMHO.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
In reference to the Mail front page it's definitely time for a change of government. Why? Because:
Labour has failed to stop the small boats. Labour has failed to curb inflation. Labour has failed to curb immigration. Labour has made a mess of Brexit. Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis. Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years. Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness. Starmer has been a dud PM.
I won’t link to it, but there’s credible footage in reputable newspapers, purported to show Russian soldiers being shot for desertion in Ukraine.
I know I’m a partisan optimist here, but it does look like the offensive of the past week is working, and the enemy is losing morale as well as territory.
I won’t link to it, but there’s credible footage in reputable newspapers, purported to show Russian soldiers being shot for desertion in Ukraine.
I know I’m a partisan optimist here, but it does look like the offensive of the past week is working, and the enemy is losing morale as well as territory.
The orcs can't have that much morale left to lose.
OT. I think OGH is right. A real danger for Rishi is being portrayed as "weak" by Starmer. Having a fight with Boris - a rapidly fading force anyway - helps to rebut that charge. He will have seen how badly John Major was damaged by Blair in the run up to 97.
Putting "a bit of stick about" has always been popular within the Tory party.
Too bad "trying to govern sensibly" is not so popular.
I don't recall that ever being mentioned in House of Cards.
In reference to the Mail front page it's definitely time for a change of government. Why? Because:
Labour has failed to stop the small boats. Labour has failed to curb inflation. Labour has failed to curb immigration. Labour has made a mess of Brexit. Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis. Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years. Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness. Starmer has been a dud PM.
Have I got that right?
It is a pretty good prediction of the relatively near future
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
IANAL but just one other case, sentenced for a different conviction, in different circumstances, seems to me to be rather weak precedence to be acting upon.
Yes seeking to get the law changed is an option but given the lack of either substantial precedence or guidelines for this I fail to see why professionals giving their objective feedback before sentencing is unreasonable.
Better than no other cases. There were certainly similarities and he discounted that tariff to reflect the circumstances in this case.
I don't think it is unreasonable because that is part of the process of how the law eventually is changed - when professionals agitate for something, although we of course are wary of experts.
But I had the feeling that he (the judge) thought that it might open the floodgates for every interest group to write in to judges about the law in which case it would make judges' lives much more difficult and also is not the avenue for a change in the law.
A reasonable proposition, which he failed to express.
In reference to the Mail front page it's definitely time for a change of government. Why? Because:
Labour has failed to stop the small boats. Labour has failed to curb inflation. Labour has failed to curb immigration. Labour has made a mess of Brexit. Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis. Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years. Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness. Starmer has been a dud PM.
Have I got that right?
Almost, but you forgot to blame Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown for kicking the mess off in the first place. If only we had given Boris a try at some point things would all be hunky dory.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
I won’t link to it, but there’s credible footage in reputable newspapers, purported to show Russian soldiers being shot for desertion in Ukraine.
I know I’m a partisan optimist here, but it does look like the offensive of the past week is working, and the enemy is losing morale as well as territory.
The orcs can't have that much morale left to lose.
Let’s hope so.
They lost another general yesterday. The brass hats seem to be rather too visible, unless of course they’re being ratted out by their own side.
The more kids go home in body bags and ambulances, the more their own communities will ask questions about what’s actually happening. How many wives and mothers need to suffer losses, before young men really start to leave the country en masse? There’s plenty of evidence where I live, that anyone with enough money to get out has left already.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is..
You can surely see the social utility in such a widely shared belief system, though ?
As an alternative to violent anarchy, it's not bad. Though against liberal humanism..
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
This is ridiculous as an argument. We need a broad based middle class society. Entrenching intergenerational social immobility just makes things worse.
"We need a broad based middle class society" lol. That is what we have, though whether many people are twatty enough to describe it as such is maybe beside the point. Most sensible people nowadays shy away from class-based crap .
The point I was making, which is clearly a stretch for your limited intellect, is that being chippy about people wanting to educate their kids where they wear a funny uniform and boast about how many people have been PMs is not going to change much. Elites exist everywhere. They even existed in the Soviet Union, and they definitely exist in the Peoples' Republic.
The irony of someone who revels in the idea of "a broad based middle class society" bemoaning entrenched intergenerational social immobility is beyond ridiculous. I have not met a single person you might describe as a "middle class" parent who is not quite keen on ensuring their privilege is passed to their offspring. It is natural and perfectly normal.
More information on the Nottingham incident. Looks like the incident started with two people stabbed to death, in the same road as the suspect either lives or was visiting. National counter-terrorist police groups involved, but that could be just because they’d already been deployed in the initial response.
Counter terrorism police have raided a home on the road where two people were found dead in Nottingham.
Dressed in tactical gear, around a dozen armed officers used a battering ram to break down a door in Ilkeston Road at 1pm.
The home is on the street where two out of three people were found dead at around 4am. An eyewitness has claimed they heard “blood-curdling screams” before a man and woman were attacked with a knife.
The raid, which lasted around 10 minutes, featured officers wearing uniforms emblazoned with CTSFO which stands for Counter Terrorism Specialist Firearm Officers.
A man was also found dead in Magdala Road and three people were injured when a van attempted to run them over in Milton Street before a suspect was apprehended at around 5.30am.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
Yes, I'm just trying to figure out whether that is what Algakirk believes
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
Yes, I'm just trying to figure out whether that is what Algakirk believes
I'd like to know God's criteria. I don't believe in it, but it might be prudent to be up to speed on the latest guidelines.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
This is ridiculous as an argument. We need a broad based middle class society. Entrenching intergenerational social immobility just makes things worse.
"We need a broad based middle class society" lol. That is what we have, though whether many people are twatty enough to describe it as such is maybe beside the point. Most sensible people nowadays shy away from class-based crap .
The point I was making, which is clearly a stretch for your limited intellect, is that being chippy about people wanting to educate their kids where they wear a funny uniform and boast about how many people have been PMs is not going to change much. Elites exist everywhere. They even existed in the Soviet Union, and they definitely exist in the Peoples' Republic.
The irony of someone who revels in the idea of "a broad based middle class society" bemoaning entrenched intergenerational social immobility is beyond ridiculous. I have not met a single person you might describe as a "middle class" parent who is not quite keen on ensuring their privilege is passed to their offspring. It is natural and perfectly normal.
Tip: saying things like 'your limited intellect' makes you sound like an obnoxious moron.
Also: look up the definition of the word 'middle'. And try talking to some actual average-income parents if any can stand you.
In reference to the Mail front page it's definitely time for a change of government. Why? Because:
Labour has failed to stop the small boats. Labour has failed to curb inflation. Labour has failed to curb immigration. Labour has made a mess of Brexit. Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis. Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years. Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness. Starmer has been a dud PM.
Have I got that right?
I think that sadly - and perhaps unfairly - for Labour, you could be quoting the Daily Mail from 2 or 3 years time. I don't see any plans or initiative to deal with these ongoing (peceived) problems and I think Labour will founder over them as the electorate have horribly short memories.
Not sure if anyone else is listening to the Covid inquiry. Currently receiving statements from the various national "bereaved action groups'. Clearly its important to hear from these groups, and I hope that we get the bottom of how things played out, but its also clear that these groups are desperate to blame.
And interestingly, the current one is from the Welsh group, and it is savaging the Welsh government.
I have thought that the biggest impact of the inquiry would be on the conservatives. I am starting to think that both the SNP and Labour too may well get some fallout.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
In reference to the Mail front page it's definitely time for a change of government. Why? Because:
Labour has failed to stop the small boats. Labour has failed to curb inflation. Labour has failed to curb immigration. Labour has made a mess of Brexit. Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis. Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years. Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness. Starmer has been a dud PM.
Have I got that right?
You make a good point wittily. But there is a kernel of a valid point in there: while the Tories have been bad at all the above, it's hard to see how Labour's proposed solutions wouldn't have made all the above situations worse. Immigration? Labour have never shown any indication that they consider it anything but a good thing. Inflation? When did Labour last urge less public spending? Productivity? It's not particularly obvious that Labour has grasped the issue. Brexit? I'm not sure Labour really sees any solutions or opportunities other than deeper integration with Europe. Wokeness? They love it. Arguably Starmer has a big lead on competence over Boris and Liz and is at worst even stevens with Rishi.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
If you read the sentencing report - the guideline jail sentence was 3 years. After that you have the reduction for an early plea but because it came in the crown court rather than the magistrates court the reduction could only be 20% rather than 33%.
And only sentences below 2 years can be suspended so the late guilty verdict removed the ability to suspend the sentence.
It would plainly not have been appropriate to have allowed any of the authors to address the court. Indeed, I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all. While it provides me with some useful information about the delivery of telemedicine services, the letter also has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws and which might seek to argue that it is important that the law is upheld by passing a deterrent sentence.
Alternatively, he was sounding off in an overly pompous manner.
Do you think the letter was appropriate? I think they got what they deserved.
Yes.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
That 160 year old law that her lawyers wanted her prosecuted under?
Yes.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
The judge referred to the other case to give guidance as to length of custodial term (suspension of the sentence being not possible). The letter was asking for presumably a suspension if not no custodial sentence.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
IANAL but just one other case, sentenced for a different conviction, in different circumstances, seems to me to be rather weak precedence to be acting upon.
Yes seeking to get the law changed is an option but given the lack of either substantial precedence or guidelines for this I fail to see why professionals giving their objective feedback before sentencing is unreasonable.
Better than no other cases. There were certainly similarities and he discounted that tariff to reflect the circumstances in this case.
I don't think it is unreasonable because that is part of the process of how the law eventually is changed - when professionals agitate for something, although we of course are wary of experts.
But I had the feeling that he (the judge) thought that it might open the floodgates for every interest group to write in to judges about the law in which case it would make judges' lives much more difficult and also is not the avenue for a change in the law.
A reasonable proposition, which he failed to express.
Of course he expressed it. Otherwise how would I have been able to infer that was his meaning?
Looks like the decline in the German economy is proving a disaster for the governing SPD, Green and FDP coalition
What's happening to the SPD could be an omen for Starmers Labour government...
Given the global economic situation and rising cost of living and inflation most western governments are unpopular now. Macron's, Scholz's, Sanchez's, Trudeau's, Biden's, Sunak's. They all have negative approval ratings or trail in the polls. Starmer's government would likely soon become unpopular too unless it could slash inflation.
Meloni's and Albanese's the few exceptions but they are only recently elected.
Talk of a 0.5% rate rise from the Bank of England. Looks like the economy has more signs of life in it than they realised.
Oil price is now at an 18-month low, but the inflation is sticky thanks to a lot of lagging effects.
OPEC are cutting production to try and keep Brent Crude in the $75-$80 range, but the pandemic caused a lot of shortages of capital goods and raw ingredients which are feeding though now, and also caused a lot of financial losses which businesses are now trying to recoup.
It’s possible that, if the war in Ukraine is resolved soon, that inflation could quickly unwind, and central banks be racing to drop interest rates as quickly as they have raised them in the past year. Petrol and diesel prices in the UK are 23% down on this date a year ago.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
This is ridiculous as an argument. We need a broad based middle class society. Entrenching intergenerational social immobility just makes things worse.
"We need a broad based middle class society" lol. That is what we have, though whether many people are twatty enough to describe it as such is maybe beside the point. Most sensible people nowadays shy away from class-based crap .
The point I was making, which is clearly a stretch for your limited intellect, is that being chippy about people wanting to educate their kids where they wear a funny uniform and boast about how many people have been PMs is not going to change much. Elites exist everywhere. They even existed in the Soviet Union, and they definitely exist in the Peoples' Republic.
The irony of someone who revels in the idea of "a broad based middle class society" bemoaning entrenched intergenerational social immobility is beyond ridiculous. I have not met a single person you might describe as a "middle class" parent who is not quite keen on ensuring their privilege is passed to their offspring. It is natural and perfectly normal.
Tip: saying things like 'your limited intellect' makes you sound like an obnoxious moron.
Also: look up the definition of the word 'middle'. And try talking to some actual average-income parents if any can stand you.
A narrow minded twat like you describing anyone as an obnoxious moron is a very amusing example of psychological projection. Nonetheless I will withdraw the comment made to the other poster and reserve the description for your not so good self. It is certainly apt in your case. Your simplistic misunderstanding of my point about the archaic description "middle class" proves my point. Indeed, it would be worth you looking up the definition of "middle class". Most people who would boringly describe themselves as such would not consider themselves on average income.
There is an unusual Tuesday local by-election today. It's in St Albans where the Lib Dems have a huge majority. The defence is Lib Dem but the ward was won by the Greens in May.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
OTOH, there are rather more training and ongoing quality control for the one career than the others.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
It is all best described as human nature.
My Gods Are Good.
Is it also human nature to defend the indefensible by calling it human nature?
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
OTOH, there are rather more training and ongoing quality control for the one career than the others.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
OTOH, there are rather more training and ongoing quality control for the one career than the others.
Harold Shipman says hi
25 years ago, though. Would be even worse than our PBTories going on about Messrs Corbyn, Brown, etc.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Well I was brought up in a liberal Christian tradition, which I still hold to in, I hope, a grown up way and it bore little relation to your child experience. Such beliefs (good = heaven, bad - hell etc) may reflects divine realities, but I have no good reason for believing in a God who is simplistic or accords to our simplifications.
Ethical monotheism and accountability to God is a foundational system of 80% of the world. That is all I said. It does not mean identical beliefs. Lots of people make more pious assumptions than I do. As to outcomes of this accountability I am agnostic but hopeful.
Most Christians (including this one) belief that final accountability is not in this world's order or time frame. As to punitive actions by God - I accept a real theological divide here. I prefer not to guess, but if I did I would hope that divine love is more redemptive than punishment.
I won’t link to it, but there’s credible footage in reputable newspapers, purported to show Russian soldiers being shot for desertion in Ukraine.
I know I’m a partisan optimist here, but it does look like the offensive of the past week is working, and the enemy is losing morale as well as territory.
The orcs can't have that much morale left to lose.
Let’s hope so.
They lost another general yesterday. The brass hats seem to be rather too visible, unless of course they’re being ratted out by their own side.
The more kids go home in body bags and ambulances, the more their own communities will ask questions about what’s actually happening. How many wives and mothers need to suffer losses, before young men really start to leave the country en masse? There’s plenty of evidence where I live, that anyone with enough money to get out has left already.
What's odd is that the strategy pursued by the Russian army is notably less sophisticated than that they pursued in WWII. There's no attempt at deception. They act as if they have the numbers they had in WWI or WWII, but without even the level of competence displayed in either war.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
This is ridiculous as an argument. We need a broad based middle class society. Entrenching intergenerational social immobility just makes things worse.
"We need a broad based middle class society" lol. That is what we have, though whether many people are twatty enough to describe it as such is maybe beside the point. Most sensible people nowadays shy away from class-based crap .
The point I was making, which is clearly a stretch for your limited intellect, is that being chippy about people wanting to educate their kids where they wear a funny uniform and boast about how many people have been PMs is not going to change much. Elites exist everywhere. They even existed in the Soviet Union, and they definitely exist in the Peoples' Republic.
The irony of someone who revels in the idea of "a broad based middle class society" bemoaning entrenched intergenerational social immobility is beyond ridiculous. I have not met a single person you might describe as a "middle class" parent who is not quite keen on ensuring their privilege is passed to their offspring. It is natural and perfectly normal.
Tip: saying things like 'your limited intellect' makes you sound like an obnoxious moron.
Also: look up the definition of the word 'middle'. And try talking to some actual average-income parents if any can stand you.
A narrow minded twat like you describing anyone as an obnoxious moron is a very amusing example of psychological projection. Nonetheless I will withdraw the comment made to the other poster and reserve the description for your not so good self. It is certainly apt in your case. Your simplistic misunderstanding of my point about the archaic description "middle class" proves my point. Indeed, it would be worth you looking up the definition of "middle class". Most people who would boringly describe themselves as such would not consider themselves on average income.
ISTR seeing some polling showing quite a surprising amount of people who are actually very rich indeed do consider themselves to be on average income (I don't recall whether there was a similar phenomenon at the other end of the scale.) People tend to associate with similar people and therefore assume that their experience is typical.
I remember the scales falling from my eyes on this when reading the Almanac of British Politics back in the 90s as a teenager. I grew up in the Cheadle constituency: not the wealthiest in the country, but, it turns out, one of the least poor: endless privately owned suburbia. I knew Stockport was mixed, and inner Manchester was poor, but I remember being quite surprised and not a little depressed by how many really quite poor constituencies there were.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
OTOH, there are rather more training and ongoing quality control for the one career than the others.
Harold Shipman says hi
25 years ago, though. Would be even worse than our PBTories going on about Messrs Corbyn, Brown, etc.
Most obvious and perhaps hyperbolic example, but the idea that all NHS staff are of the highest quality and that the "QC" system is beyond reproach requires a level of naivety only held by those who believe that the NHS is "the envy of the world".
Mr. F, little while since I read it, but in Marc Morris' biography of Edward I his later wars (notably against Scotland) were far less competent in execution than earlier ones. Refusing to give dues to the nobles made them very reluctant.
Putin's mind is not what it was. Perhaps he's been persuaded by his own propaganda. Or perhaps he's stuck in 2014 when Ukraine really was a pushover. They've certainly shown the wisdom of being prepared and putting in the years to improve their military situation.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
Yes, I'm just trying to figure out whether that is what Algakirk believes
I'd like to know God's criteria. I don't believe in it, but it might be prudent to be up to speed on the latest guidelines.
I'm totally fine with following any religion to save myself from eternal damnation. The thing that's stopping me is that I don't know the 'right' one to pick. Not much point being a close adherent of Catholicism only to find out that God is a Protestant (or a Jew, Muslim etc) and I get sent down anyway.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
Yes, I'm just trying to figure out whether that is what Algakirk believes
I'd like to know God's criteria. I don't believe in it, but it might be prudent to be up to speed on the latest guidelines.
In humanist terms most people live decent lives most of the time. Most people most of the time don't kill, steal, betray, lie etc. Collective, society and individual conscience is a perfectly rational starting point towards 'God's criteria'. Literalist adherence to a stone age book isn't, though on the whole the 10 Commandments have worn rather well when applied with sense and adaptation.
I won’t link to it, but there’s credible footage in reputable newspapers, purported to show Russian soldiers being shot for desertion in Ukraine.
I know I’m a partisan optimist here, but it does look like the offensive of the past week is working, and the enemy is losing morale as well as territory.
The orcs can't have that much morale left to lose.
Let’s hope so.
They lost another general yesterday. The brass hats seem to be rather too visible, unless of course they’re being ratted out by their own side.
The more kids go home in body bags and ambulances, the more their own communities will ask questions about what’s actually happening. How many wives and mothers need to suffer losses, before young men really start to leave the country en masse? There’s plenty of evidence where I live, that anyone with enough money to get out has left already.
What's odd is that the strategy pursued by the Russian army is notably less sophisticated than that they pursued in WWII. There's no attempt at deception. They act as if they have the numbers they had in WWI or WWII, but without even the level of competence displayed in either war.
Yes, the Russian military doctrine appears to have not evolved in the best part of a century, digging trenches and laying land mines. They don’t dare fly aircraft, in case they lose them and their pilots.
Meanwhile, their enemy is calling in precision missile strikes from hour-old satellite photos, dropping grenades from modified consumer drones, and has tanks with night-vision sights.
Two police officers in a marked van who followed two teenage boys on an electric bike before it crashed killing them both in Cardiff have been served with gross misconduct notices, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Well I was brought up in a liberal Christian tradition, which I still hold to in, I hope, a grown up way and it bore little relation to your child experience. Such beliefs (good = heaven, bad - hell etc) may reflects divine realities, but I have no good reason for believing in a God who is simplistic or accords to our simplifications.
Ethical monotheism and accountability to God is a foundational system of 80% of the world. That is all I said. It does not mean identical beliefs. Lots of people make more pious assumptions than I do. As to outcomes of this accountability I am agnostic but hopeful.
Most Christians (including this one) belief that final accountability is not in this world's order or time frame. As to punitive actions by God - I accept a real theological divide here. I prefer not to guess, but if I did I would hope that divine love is more redemptive than punishment.
Elitist institution produces elitists shocker. It's just a finishing school for chancers and sociopaths. We'd be better off without it.
Yea, great idea, let us just dumb down everything. The human eco-system needs elites, being chippy about Eton or Harrow doesn't change that. Why do you think so many working class and middle class parents boast about their children "going into medicine"? It is because being a doctor is seen as being in the elite. Whether medicine is an elite, or even whether it should be is by the by. It is seen as such.
We need elites. Railing against that reality is just socialist chippy bollox.
That depends which kinds of elite, I would say. British TV has been dumbed down, partly, and for instance, because of what could be described as anti-elitist arguments during the 1990's, from what I also suppose one could describe as 'chippy populists' like Rupert Murdoch, and Tory politicians from a similar background supporting him.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Eton has seemed to me to be more often promoting, like a few other schools, much more often an elitist ethos of wealth, power and privilege, than service, culture or intellect, as in the letter from the sadly regretful Etonian teacher below, and as was quoted in the Times.
It is a good post, and I think you have nailed it to some extent. Basically people like the elites that they like or approve of, and loathe those that they don't. Hence it is possible for left leaning people to be massively supine and obsequious to someone because they are a doctor who works for the NHS, even if he (as many have) been educated at Eton, while railing against the terrible elitism of an individual who went to a minor public school who is a hedge fund manager or Tory politician.
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
OTOH, there are rather more training and ongoing quality control for the one career than the others.
Harold Shipman says hi
25 years ago, though. Would be even worse than our PBTories going on about Messrs Corbyn, Brown, etc.
Most obvious and perhaps hyperbolic example, but the idea that all NHS staff are of the highest quality and that the "QC" system is beyond reproach requires a level of naivety only held by those who believe that the NHS is "the envy of the world".
In reference to the Mail front page it's definitely time for a change of government. Why? Because:
Labour has failed to stop the small boats. Labour has failed to curb inflation. Labour has failed to curb immigration. Labour has made a mess of Brexit. Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis. Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years. Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness. Starmer has been a dud PM.
Have I got that right?
You make a good point wittily. But there is a kernel of a valid point in there: while the Tories have been bad at all the above, it's hard to see how Labour's proposed solutions wouldn't have made all the above situations worse. Immigration? Labour have never shown any indication that they consider it anything but a good thing. Inflation? When did Labour last urge less public spending? Productivity? It's not particularly obvious that Labour has grasped the issue. Brexit? I'm not sure Labour really sees any solutions or opportunities other than deeper integration with Europe. Wokeness? They love it. Arguably Starmer has a big lead on competence over Boris and Liz and is at worst even stevens with Rishi.
This reminds me of something I used to do but have refrained from on PB. You know how New Labour's main failing was letting the City run riot, trusting them to self-regulate, to mix dynamism with professional risk management, and all would be well in the best of all possible worlds? A classic Tory approach in other words. Laissez faire over Nanny state.
Ok, so what I'd repeatedly argue (quite eloquently at times) is that the Crash of 08 did not happen under Labour at all. Since it was caused by Labour following TORY policies and adopting TORY brain chemistry, the Crash happened under the Tories. One of my very best, I always thought. It drove people wild with anger and derision.
I just eagerly unwrapped my hotel pillow-chocolate and discovered it’s actually a mint
The disappointment is surprisingly severe
Chocolates on hotel pillows are an absolute abomination of an idea, especially if you've had an agreeable dinner and collapse into bed without noticing the damned thing.
I just eagerly unwrapped my hotel pillow-chocolate and discovered it’s actually a mint
The disappointment is surprisingly severe
You’ve been there…you remember? That special place? Where someone held your hand? And love was sweeter than the berries or the honey, Or the stinging taste of mint
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
Yes, I'm just trying to figure out whether that is what Algakirk believes
I'd like to know God's criteria. I don't believe in it, but it might be prudent to be up to speed on the latest guidelines.
I'm totally fine with following any religion to save myself from eternal damnation. The thing that's stopping me is that I don't know the 'right' one to pick. Not much point being a close adherent of Catholicism only to find out that God is a Protestant (or a Jew, Muslim etc) and I get sent down anyway.
Without wishing to sound too much like HYUFD, I believe the standard answer to this by all but the most extreme of Christian fundamentalists is when Christ is reported to have said "My father's house has many rooms", which may just have been him bragging that his dad had a big place, but I believe it is interpreted as saying if you live a good and spiritual life you have a place in heaven.
I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells
On the other hand if you have a strong religiously derived set of moral views and are in a position where you can speak on a political subject that intersects strongly with those moral views (not grey squirrels, but perhaps treatment of asylum seekers or similar) and have your voice carry some persuasive power, I think a lot of religions and moral codes would say you have an obligation to use the advantage of your position to try to persuade others to follow the more moral course of action.
So I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure I'd have bishops in the HoL, but I think they're entirely right to speak up on some "political" issues, whether they're in the HoL or merely opining from their pulpit. (I might agree or disagree on the individual opinions, of course.)
To me though religion isn't a moral thing (morals and society norms change over time but God does not for that would imply God is led by humans) but a spiritual thing. Bishops shoudl be there to bring people to God not to lecture on politics or even morals
Fair enough; there are loads of spiritual traditions that say religion isn't a moral thing. But for four fifths of the earth's surface the predominant tradition for centuries has been 'ethical monotheism'. That is, there is one God, and we are accountable to God. A sort of universal Ofsted/CQC/Supreme Court.
This, like all things, gets perverted, but for myself as a very liberal Christian I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative. Like accountable to no-one; or accountable to the Daily Mail.
Struggling a bit to understand this: are you saying you find it comforting to believe that Hitler is being punished in an afterlife?
Not sure where the unclarity is. The answer to your question is No.
The whole point of universal accountability to the one God of ethical monotheism (an idea shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians) is that ultimate questions are reserved to God, not us. As a liberal Christian I leave the matter there.
Being humans the history of religion is littered with people playing God in this regard, especially those who condemn others but not themselves, and apply double standards. And not only religious people of course.
You said:
"I would rather both Hitler and I were accountable to that God (especially in its liberal Christian versions!) than any alternative"
1) why would you prefer it? I mean Hitler, I think, killed himself because he knew he had lost the war and was going to be captured - is he accountable to God because God is then judging (and punishing) him after his death? Or what do you mean?
2) is your preference for Hitler being accountable to God the reason why you believe it to be true?
a) I prefer it because it is less inadequate than all the alternatives. And what I mean is exactly what I said. I have no intention of second guessing God.
b) No
So, if I understand you, you are happy that Hitler is accountable to God, but you don't know what that means?
1) All of us being accountable to God is not some nutty obscurity. It is a mainstream belief of the largest religious traditions covering 80% of the world's land.
2) What it means is exactly what it says. Adolf and all of us are accountable to God, and this accountability is the most ultimate and final one there is.
3) I am not remotely going to suggest that it is for me to know how God deals finally with our accountability to him. That is playing God.
4) These are completely ordinary elements of what it is to hold a mainstream faith (this is not knowledge - see for example Kant's first critique passim) in one of the non fundamentalist traditions of ethical monotheism. Like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and other mainstream Christians, most members of Islam and most Jews.
I'm just curious as to how you believe it works, and what this accountability means. Your answer leaves me none the wiser, and it looks like you don't want to explain (telling me it covers 80% of the world's land doesn't help at all, nor does referring me to Kant).
I am not sure what would count as an explanation here. The traditional language is that God is the judge, but that doesn't help you or me very much. Or indeed how 'how it works' would apply to divine action.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
OK. I am familiar with what I was told as a child, which was basically after you die if you've been good you go to heaven, and if you've been bad you go to hell (a place of eternal torment). It sounds like you don't believe that, though I'm not sure. I do know people who do believe exactly that. You think I should be familiar with your belief because it is shared by 80% of the world - well I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with it, and I don't for a second think that it is shared by 80% of the world, whatever it is!
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die? Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Do you not think that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" requires God to make a judgement about whether you're good or bad?
Yes, I'm just trying to figure out whether that is what Algakirk believes
I'd like to know God's criteria. I don't believe in it, but it might be prudent to be up to speed on the latest guidelines.
In humanist terms most people live decent lives most of the time. Most people most of the time don't kill, steal, betray, lie etc. Collective, society and individual conscience is a perfectly rational starting point towards 'God's criteria'. Literalist adherence to a stone age book isn't, though on the whole the 10 Commandments have worn rather well when applied with sense and adaptation.
Someone put it to me that the whole of morality is or should be encapsulated by Luke 6:31.
The rest is details.
And I would be interested to know the equivalent in other traditions and their dates.
The only question about “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is whether it is a rule or a guideline or a law.
Comments
Anyway, the other advantage to Rishi is that in the event of a fistfight with Starmer during an election debate he can claim to have acted to remove Boris as leader while Sir Keir supinely supported Corbyn through two general elections.
If someone is on trial under a 160 year old antiquated law for which no sentencing guidelines even exist, then I think professional bodies who feel they have standing on the matter ought to be able to give their input.
The Judge then ought to be able to weigh such feedback on its merits, or dismiss it entirely, but its not 'better' for people who think they have relevant information to deny it.
https://www.cityam.com/bank-of-england-to-hoist-interest-rates-to-5-75-per-cent-as-experts-warn-uk-inflation-is-out-of-control/
The court has to be a step removed from lobbying or special pleading to those not directly involved in the case. The judge makes a good point that it would also have been clearly inappropriate for others to write in on the opposing side also.
Page 5 of 6
22. Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating features of your case, I consider
that the appropriate sentence after trial would have been three years’ imprisonment.
24. For the offence of administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, I
sentence you to 28 months’ imprisonment. Among the many tragedies in this case
is that you did not indicate your guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in the
magistrates’ court. Had that been done, the sentence of imprisonment that I am
now obliged to pass would in law have been capable of being suspended
Basically if she had pleaded guilt earlier the reduction for the early guilty plea would have reduced the sentence below 2 years at which point it could have been suspended.
Because the sentence is 28 months it couldn't be suspended.
One thing for sure is that, in whatever state of mind she was, she was determinedly and knowingly breaking the law.
And as the judge says if you disagree with the law lobby parliament, don't write letters to judges.
I am content to leave the issue open; indeed I don't think I have a choice, without veering into fundamentalism or fideism of some sort.
There's no sentencing guidelines for it, it seems entirely appropriate to me that those with relevant information ought to be able to weigh in before sentencing is passed.
The Judge ought to be able to dismiss all those comments if he so feels, but I don't see any way it is "better" to have professional bodies that think they have something to say be kept quiet instead.
The Judge says what if others do the same from the other direction - well again, the Judge ought to be competent enough to weight that up on its own merits there too.
Both not viable under the law for reasons he sets out. If the other side had written to ask for the death penalty then the response would be the same, as he pointed out.
Go change the law.
Even being a Tory MP requires some service to your constituents. Bear Grylls is also an Old Etonian and Chief Scout.
Not all Etonian PMs and MPs have been Tories either. Gladstone was a Liberal Old Etonian PM, Thorpe an Old Etonian Liberal Leader, Tam Dalyell a prominent Labour backbench MP and Old Etonian too
And then you come across something like this: https://twitter.com/NatalkaKyiv/status/1668244832702156804?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1668244832702156804|twgr^94b54a006ec6be7f8ccf518d469ef2c96881a8e3|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/6/12/2174909/-Ukraine-Update-As-Russia-falls-back-toward-defensive-lines-how-much-force-is-Ukraine-holding-back
The Russians make our politicians look clear eyed, intelligent and even sane. Or being delusional is yet another thing that they are amateurs at.
Yes seeking to get the law changed is an option but given the lack of either substantial precedence or guidelines for this I fail to see why professionals giving their objective feedback before sentencing is unreasonable.
The Guardian article cites House of Commons Library research, using UNCTAD figures, but, as normal with the Guardian, and reprehensible in my view, doesn't link to the source of the data. I can't find this research on the House of Commons Library website.
What I can find is some figures on UK trade that have UK exports lower in 2022 than in 2021, which contradicts the other figures posted in this thread.
So, I'm even more thoroughly confused now.
CDU/CSU 29%
AfD 19%
SPD 18%
Green 14%
FDP 7%
Left 4%
Others 9%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I don't think it is unreasonable because that is part of the process of how the law eventually is changed - when professionals agitate for something, although we of course are wary of experts.
But I had the feeling that he (the judge) thought that it might open the floodgates for every interest group to write in to judges about the law in which case it would make judges' lives much more difficult and also is not the avenue for a change in the law.
If someone is convinced of involuntary manslaughter should they get the same sentence as murder? It's a different offence.
Nadine Dorries, a tragedy in 4 acts.
The lights dim as our play begins...
1) Calls out cronyism in how jobs in the Lords are given out.
https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1668569306940973057
Is this judgement by God something that we face after we die?
Does it involve the possibility of being punished for how we lived?
Labour has failed to stop the small boats.
Labour has failed to curb inflation.
Labour has failed to curb immigration.
Labour has made a mess of Brexit.
Labour has presided over a cost of living crisis.
Labour has failed to significantly improve productivity over the last 13 years.
Labour has failed to stop the spread of infectious wokeness.
Starmer has been a dud PM.
Have I got that right?
I know I’m a partisan optimist here, but it does look like the offensive of the past week is working, and the enemy is losing morale as well as territory.
Not happy over here in Alexandria, Va
They lost another general yesterday. The brass hats seem to be rather too visible, unless of course they’re being ratted out by their own side.
The more kids go home in body bags and ambulances, the more their own communities will ask questions about what’s actually happening. How many wives and mothers need to suffer losses, before young men really start to leave the country en masse? There’s plenty of evidence where I live, that anyone with enough money to get out has left already.
As an alternative to violent anarchy, it's not bad. Though against liberal humanism..
I did say I am INTERNATIONAL
The point I was making, which is clearly a stretch for your limited intellect, is that being chippy about people wanting to educate their kids where they wear a funny uniform and boast about how many people have been PMs is not going to change much. Elites exist everywhere. They even existed in the Soviet Union, and they definitely exist in the Peoples' Republic.
The irony of someone who revels in the idea of "a broad based middle class society" bemoaning entrenched intergenerational social immobility is beyond ridiculous. I have not met a single person you might describe as a "middle class" parent who is not quite keen on ensuring their privilege is passed to their offspring. It is natural and perfectly normal.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/13/nottingham-incident-live-updates-police-road-closures/
Counter terrorism police have raided a home on the road where two people were found dead in Nottingham.
Dressed in tactical gear, around a dozen armed officers used a battering ram to break down a door in Ilkeston Road at 1pm.
The home is on the street where two out of three people were found dead at around 4am. An eyewitness has claimed they heard “blood-curdling screams” before a man and woman were attacked with a knife.
The raid, which lasted around 10 minutes, featured officers wearing uniforms emblazoned with CTSFO which stands for Counter Terrorism Specialist Firearm Officers.
A man was also found dead in Magdala Road and three people were injured when a van attempted to run them over in Milton Street before a suspect was apprehended at around 5.30am.
Looks like the decline in the German economy is proving a disaster for the governing SPD, Green and FDP coalition
It is all best described as irrational hypocrisy.
Also: look up the definition of the word 'middle'. And try talking to some actual average-income parents if any can stand you.
And interestingly, the current one is from the Welsh group, and it is savaging the Welsh government.
I have thought that the biggest impact of the inquiry would be on the conservatives. I am starting to think that both the SNP and Labour too may well get some fallout.
Interesting times.
My Gods Are Good.
Arguably Starmer has a big lead on competence over Boris and Liz and is at worst even stevens with Rishi.
And only sentences below 2 years can be suspended so the late guilty verdict removed the ability to suspend the sentence.
Meloni's and Albanese's the few exceptions but they are only recently elected.
OPEC are cutting production to try and keep Brent Crude in the $75-$80 range, but the pandemic caused a lot of shortages of capital goods and raw ingredients which are feeding though now, and also caused a lot of financial losses which businesses are now trying to recoup.
It’s possible that, if the war in Ukraine is resolved soon, that inflation could quickly unwind, and central banks be racing to drop interest rates as quickly as they have raised them in the past year. Petrol and diesel prices in the UK are 23% down on this date a year ago.
Ethical monotheism and accountability to God is a foundational system of 80% of the world. That is all I said. It does not mean identical beliefs. Lots of people make more pious assumptions than I do. As to outcomes of this accountability I am agnostic but hopeful.
Most Christians (including this one) belief that final accountability is not in this world's order or time frame. As to punitive actions by God - I accept a real theological divide here. I prefer not to guess, but if I did I would hope that divine love is more redemptive than punishment.
I remember the scales falling from my eyes on this when reading the Almanac of British Politics back in the 90s as a teenager. I grew up in the Cheadle constituency: not the wealthiest in the country, but, it turns out, one of the least poor: endless privately owned suburbia. I knew Stockport was mixed, and inner Manchester was poor, but I remember being quite surprised and not a little depressed by how many really quite poor constituencies there were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvseO2cABrY
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Putin's mind is not what it was. Perhaps he's been persuaded by his own propaganda. Or perhaps he's stuck in 2014 when Ukraine really was a pushover. They've certainly shown the wisdom of being prepared and putting in the years to improve their military situation.
Meanwhile, their enemy is calling in precision missile strikes from hour-old satellite photos, dropping grenades from modified consumer drones, and has tanks with night-vision sights.
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1668612441746587651
The disappointment is surprisingly severe
Ok, so what I'd repeatedly argue (quite eloquently at times) is that the Crash of 08 did not happen under Labour at all. Since it was caused by Labour following TORY policies and adopting TORY brain chemistry, the Crash happened under the Tories. One of my very best, I always thought. It drove people wild with anger and derision.
What happened to After Eights, in fact.
That special place?
Where someone held your hand?
And love was sweeter than the berries or the honey,
Or the stinging taste of mint
(track 2)
The rest is details.
And I would be interested to know the equivalent in other traditions and their dates.
The only question about “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is whether it is a rule or a guideline or a law.