In his opening address Hugo Keith KC, the lead lawyer to the inquiry, did not shy away from difficult political questions.
The issue of Brexit and whether leaving the EU might have distracted politicians and civil servants from planning for the next pandemic is something victims’ groups have raised in the past.
Keith said that from 2018 onwards that departure and, in particular, planning for a possible no-deal Brexit, required an “enormous amount” of preparations to address “food and medicine supplies, travel and transport, business and borders and so on”.
“Did the attention paid to the risks of a no-deal exit, Operation Yellowhammer as it was known, drain the resources and capacity that should have been continuing the fight against the next pandemic?” he asked.
“Or did all that generic and operational planning, in fact lead to people being better trained and well-marshalled and in fact better prepared to deal with Covid...
Quote Message: My lady, on the evidence so far, and it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.” from Hugo Keith KC Lead lawyer to the inquiry My lady, on the evidence so far, and it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.”
Hugo Keith KC Lead lawyer to the inquiry
Given 'No Deal Prep' was mainly about political gameplaying it's more likely to have hindered not helped as regards the pandemic. So it looks like I agree with Hugo Keith.
This position requires believing that pandemic prep in Jan 2020 and pandemic prep in say Jan 2016 would be meaningfully different. The idea that we would have a genius world-beating pandemic reponse if it weren't for brexit is silly. We were caught on the hop by covid like most other countries. Doesn't mean lessons can't be learned, of course.
The was a big pandemic preparedness report on Heath Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s desk in 2016. Whatever happened to that?
It probably got shoved away so as to free up time for the Brexit battles. Like everything else did.
Seattle Times ($) - Trump scrambles to find lawyer on eve of first federal court appearance
Donald Trump spent the day before his historic appearance in federal court scrambling to find a qualified Florida lawyer willing to join his defense team as he faces the Justice Department’s first prosecution of a former president.
After touching down in Miami on Monday, Trump spent the afternoon interviewing prospective lawyers and meeting with his legal team, along with other top advisers, to discuss the case, in which he is accused of mishandling classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them . . .
Several prominent Florida attorneys declined to take Trump on as a client after two of the key lawyers handling the documents matter — Jim Trusty and John Rowley — resigned last week, according to people familiar with the matter.
Trusty and Rowley’s departure was sudden and unexpected, leaving Trump jockeying to identify a lawyer ahead of his Tuesday appearance in federal court in Miami, where rules require practicing attorneys to be a member in good standing of the Florida bar or to be sponsored by one before appearing. . . .
The 11th-hour flurry of action to hire a seasoned trial attorney was a familiar dance for Trump, who has had difficulty hiring and keeping lawyers over the course of numerous federal and state investigations since his 2016 election as president.
Disagreements over legal strategy have hindered the search for new defense attorneys . . . .
Jon Sale, a prominent Florida defense attorney who worked on the Watergate prosecution team and turned down the opportunity to join Trump’s defense team last year, said that the pros and cons of representing Trump are obvious.
“Without engaging in hyperbole, it’s arguably the biggest case in the world,” Sale said. “But the cons are illustrated by three of his four lawyers quitting in the last few weeks. He needs a good Florida lawyer with an impeccable reputation who is very experienced in this.”
The club of former Trump lawyers has a deep bench, highlighting the challenges his legal team is likely to face in the months ahead. Trump is known as a difficult client — he eschews legal advice, sometimes issues public threats to engage in illegal activity and frequently skips out on his legal bills. . . .
Another liability in representing Trump: his knack for putting his lawyers in a position to become witnesses against him. In spring 2022, Trump hired former federal prosecutor Evan Corcoran to help handle a subpoena issued by the Justice Department seeking the return of classified documents. But in March, a federal judge ordered Corcoran to turn over notes of his interactions with Trump, finding they could be evidence of a crime and thus were exempt from attorney-client privilege.
Quotes were featured in Trump’s indictment: Corcoran was referred to in the document as “Attorney 1.” . . .
In his opening address Hugo Keith KC, the lead lawyer to the inquiry, did not shy away from difficult political questions.
The issue of Brexit and whether leaving the EU might have distracted politicians and civil servants from planning for the next pandemic is something victims’ groups have raised in the past.
Keith said that from 2018 onwards that departure and, in particular, planning for a possible no-deal Brexit, required an “enormous amount” of preparations to address “food and medicine supplies, travel and transport, business and borders and so on”.
“Did the attention paid to the risks of a no-deal exit, Operation Yellowhammer as it was known, drain the resources and capacity that should have been continuing the fight against the next pandemic?” he asked.
“Or did all that generic and operational planning, in fact lead to people being better trained and well-marshalled and in fact better prepared to deal with Covid...
Quote Message: My lady, on the evidence so far, and it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.” from Hugo Keith KC Lead lawyer to the inquiry My lady, on the evidence so far, and it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.”
Hugo Keith KC Lead lawyer to the inquiry
Given 'No Deal Prep' was mainly about political gameplaying it's more likely to have hindered not helped as regards the pandemic. So it looks like I agree with Hugo Keith.
This position requires believing that pandemic prep in Jan 2020 and pandemic prep in say Jan 2016 would be meaningfully different. The idea that we would have a genius world-beating pandemic reponse if it weren't for brexit is silly. We were caught on the hop by covid like most other countries. Doesn't mean lessons can't be learned, of course.
Nobody sane believes that absent Brexit we'd have been all fully prepped and chanting "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" at Covid when it first reared its ugly head. But you don't have to believe that to think (as Hugo and I do) that it more likely hindered than helped.
What if there's a trolley heading towards your wife, and you can pull a level that will divert the trolley to a branch line where it will kill three Nazis. But it turns out your wife is a Nazi too, and one of the three branch-line Nazis is pregnant. But it was an incest rape and she prays every day. And your wife, well she makes graven images.
What then? WHAT THEN?
I think I can answer but to check a point about the wife first. Did you marry her in church or was it just a civil ceremony?
And which one? As we all know from the political news, at least one Christian sect does not recognise marriages made under other Christian sects.
If you mean denomination (Christianity might have once been described as a Jewish sect, but not generally now), then which one are you referring to?
Do adulterers get into heaven even if they have committed to Christ?
If they have repented, as Charles and Camilla had to repent of their sins at their blessing Service of Prayer and Dedication by Archbishop Rowan Williams at St George's Chapel Windsor in 2005 after their civil marriage (which the late Queen refused to attend) at Windsor Guildhall
The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.
From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.
If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.
I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.
To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
The judge did indeed ignore the letter. His point was that it is not appropriate for people to lobby judges about sentencing, particularly when, as here, they were effectively asking the judge to ignore the law. Lobby parliament to change the law by all means. Write to the press. But don't lobby judges.
No he did not ignore the letter, he said it would be "better" had the letter not been written.
That's absurd and chilling and not at all reasonable in my eyes. We live in a free country, people who think they have standing should be free to send in letters as appropriate and the Judge should be free to ignore them, but he went further than ignoring it, he said it would be "better" had it not been written.
Its never "better" to silence people who have something to say.
And again I repeat my question from before, he's said that she is going to jail as she didn't plead guilty at magistrates court - but as far as I can tell she was not found guilty of that which she was charged with at magistrates court. So how is the fact she pled guilty later, to an offence she was never originally charged with, something to hold against her?
IANAL but the ruling and Judgment seems pompous and not at all reasonable.
If you prefer, he did not take the letter into account in sentencing. I simplified that to saying he ignored it. And he isn't in any respects silencing the letter writers. He makes it clear that, if they want the law changed (which is what they were asking the judge to do) they should lobby parliament.
I agree with the judge. We don't want people lobbying judges about sentencing. It would have been equally inappropriate for those wanting tighter abortion laws to lobby the judge arguing for a harsher sentence to act as a deterrent.
Regarding sentencing, she was not found not guilty of the original charge. That charge was dropped. She did not, in the magistrates' court, offer a plea of guilty to the alternative charge. Indeed, it wasn't until later that her barrister suggested the alternative charge. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which the judge is required to follow, that means she gets a smaller reduction in sentence. Whether the Guidelines are right is a separate issue, but the Guidelines are clear that, as she didn't plead guilty to anything in the magistrates' court, she gets a smaller reduction. That isn't the judge being pompous or unreasonable. It is the judge doing what the law requires him to do.
You can only plead to what you're charged with. It's the prosecution's job to level those charges against you. Not yours to incriminate yourself.
Seems bonkers and against natural justice.
The principle is that she didn’t plead guilty before a crown court trial. She took the risk and lost. So she doesn’t get a discount.
But she wasn't found guilty of anything before the crown court.
How can she have "lost" if she is not guilty of anything the CPS had before the Magistrates?
Because her lawyer spent a considerable amount of everyone’s time and money, public money, persuading the CPS to substitute one charge with another, and then persuading the judge at the crown court to accept the change. Which is why the sentence discount for her plea was only 20%, rather than any more than that.
That's total bullshit.
So if you're charged with murder, and the CPS later drops the murder charge and you accept a plea of involuntary manslaughter, should the sentencing hold against you the fact that you didn't plead guilty to murder.
She is not guilty of anything that was filed before the Magistrates. Those charges were all dropped, the CPS didn't have to drop them, it chose to. The fact she pled not guilty to those offences should not be held against her when she is according to the CPS and the courts now legally not guilty of those offences.
She pleaded not guilty at the magistrates, and then at the start of the trial spent time with the CPS and the crown court agreeing a substitute charge.
The discount given for a guilty plea at the magistrates, is to avoid involving the crown court at all. In this case, the prosecution did considerable work in collecting and bringing evidence, based purely on her earlier not guilty plea, which is why a smaller sentencing discount was given. The idea for the substitute charge came from her lawyer at the crown court, after the vast majority of the work for the original trial had been done by the prosecution.
Arguably, the CPS should have pressed on with the original, more serious, charge. But they have to consider what's in the public interest.
Whether or not she could have pleaded guilty to the less serious offence at the mags, I don't know. But it does sound like a negotiation has gone on quite late in the day.
If the CPS changes charges, for whatever reason and those new charges are pled guilty to at the earliest opportunity then the discount should be pasu with the original discount had the accused pled guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Precisely.
Its not possible to plead guilty to a charge before the CPS files those charges. If the CPS changes charges then the earliest opportunity is whenever the change happens, not before that.
If the CPS doesn't want that discount to apply, it shouldn't change charges and should proceed to trial, but it didn't.
The first sentence of your second paragraph is wrong, which means your entire argument fails.
It is always possible to plead guilty to a lesser charge than the one the CPS has filed. For example, if you are charged with murder, you can plead guilty to manslaughter even though that isn't the charge. She could have pleaded guilty to the lesser charge when this went to the magistrates' court even though she hadn't been charged with it at that stage. Indeed, her lawyer could have concluded a plea bargain with the CPS before it got that far, in which case she would have been charged with the lesser offence. None of that happened, so she loses some of the discount for pleading guilty.
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
Yet the police continue to wonder why they have a recruitment problem. Chase suspects and get fired.
If they lied to their superiors about the whether or not they were following those kids at the time, then gross misconduct sounds entirely appropriate. If two people die & you lie about your involvement, no matter how tangential, when interviewed by the police under caution, then it’s not going to go well for you is it?
Surely we have to hold the police to, at the very least, the standard we’d expect an ordinary member of the public to be held to in similar circumstances.
To be fair, yes. If the CCTV evidence says that they lied outright to their superiors, then they should be fired. As opposed to the heavily-edited BBC view of the CCTV, which any police officer be able should spot has a 15” cut between the suspect vehicle passing and the police vehicle passing.
Do adulterers get into heaven even if they have committed to Christ?
If they have repented, as Charles and Camilla had to repent of their sins at their blessing by Archbishop Rowan Williams at St George's Chapel Windsor in 2005 after their civil marriage (which the late Queen refused to attend) at Windsor Registry Office
Wow, they will be greatly relieved (assuming they follow this site) to have received your reassurance.
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
And how many Brits realize that it was not the British that put an end to Barbary pirates, but the newly formed American Navy?
A fair few.
From the Halls of Montezuma To the shores of Tripoli; We fight our country’s battles In the air, on land, and sea; First to fight for right and freedom And to keep our honor clean; We are proud to claim the title Of United States Marine...
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
And how many Brits realize that it was not the British that put an end to Barbary pirates, but the newly formed American Navy?
Not true. It was a mix. Cromwell was the first to get a grip. The tune Rule Britannia celebrates the Royal Navy wiping out the Sale Rovers and the like - not our imperial vastness. That's why we shall "never never never be slaves"
The Americans also played a vital role alongside. US Marines taking out Tripoli, etc
Seattle Times ($) - White House press secretary violated Hatch Act, watchdog agency finds
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre violated the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from promoting partisan politics while in their official capacity, for how she spoke about Republicans during official White House press briefings, a government watchdog agency found. But the agency also did not recommend any reprimand.
The Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that enforces the act, cited Jean-Pierre’s use of the phrase “mega MAGA Republicans” during news briefings leading up to the 2022 midterms as being in violation of the 1939 law, according to the letter dated June 7.
“Because Ms. Jean-Pierre made the statements while acting in her official capacity, she violated the Hatch Act prohibition against using her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election,” Ana Galindo-Marrone, who leads the agency’s Hatch Act Unit, wrote in the letter.
The office, however, did not recommend any reprimand, saying that Jean-Pierre may not have been told such phrasing was a violation.
“The White House Counsel’s Office did not at the time believe that Ms. Jean-Pierre’s remarks were prohibited by the Hatch Act, and it is unclear whether OSC’s contrary analysis regarding the use of ‘MAGA Republicans’ was ever conveyed to Ms. Jean-Pierre,” the letter stated.
Jean-Pierre has frequently cited the Hatch Act during press briefings, often using it as a reason she cannot answer reporters’ questions. White House spokesman Andrew Bates said Monday that the administration is reviewing the OSC’s opinion . . . .
A 2021 federal investigation found that at least 13 senior Trump administration officials violated the Hatch Act intentionally by mixing governing with campaigning before the 2020 election.
A scathing 60-page report from the Office of the Special Counsel said that a “willful disregard for the law” was “especially pernicious” during the Trump administration, saying many officials abused their government roles days before the November election. Trump — whose job it was to discipline his political appointees — allowed them to illegally promote his reelection on the job despite warnings to some from ethics officials, the report said. . . .
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
Yet the police continue to wonder why they have a recruitment problem. Chase suspects and get fired.
What offense were the two "suspects" in this incident, suspected of committing?
If you’re thinking about getting an e-bike, you’ll need to understand the UK law for electric bikes. It’s legal to ride an e-bike in the UK without a licence, but only if it meets certain requirements: it must be pedal assist instead of ‘twist and go throttle’; and have a maximum power output of 250 watts, with a speed restriction of 15.5mph.
It looked quicker than that to me so for starters -
Riding without a license, riding without insurance & riding without a helmet.
It's probably the former but a Dura Ace type figure has fiddled with the electronics.
Reflash the ESC with a torrented image to uncork the hot sauce. I've done a few. FTP.
I'd worry that a bike built for 15mph might develop interesting dynamics at higher speeds.
I found my unloaded touring bike had a steering instability when descending at 40+mph in the Dales.
[Don't grip the bars, don't brake hard, try gripping the top bar with your knees to change the resonance]
Amazing but true. On uniform swing, using the latest opinion polls, Labour are currently heading for 336 seats, just 10 more than they need for a majority. Peter Kellner said a few days ago that uniform swing is usually more reliable than proportional swing.
On that basis Labour may not get a majority in England even if it has one UK wide (especially if it is Labour gains from the SNP that get it over the line for an overall UK majority). Yet Gove idiotically scrapped EVEL
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
There's a book about the sack of Baltimore on the bookshelves in this house. It doesn't seem to be a secret. See also the Aubrey and Maturin novels.
I reckon, indeed I am 99% sure, that if you asked a typical British schoolchild, or even a Brit in their 20s, about the Muslim slave trade, they'd be surprised to learn it even existed, let alone that it was on such an epic scale (20-30m people?) and that it continued for 1400 years, well into the 20th century
I tried it on my older daughter - 17, and very bright, and very well read. She had no clue
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
And how many Brits realize that it was not the British that put an end to Barbary pirates, but the newly formed American Navy?
A fair few.
From the Halls of Montezuma To the shores of Tripoli; We fight our country’s battles In the air, on land, and sea; First to fight for right and freedom And to keep our honor clean; We are proud to claim the title Of United States Marine...
My own Daddy Dearest, himself a Marine of Korean War vintage, objected to the addition of "In the air" to the original line, "On the land and on the sea" (or something like that).
He was a traditionalist-minded old-school Jarhead!
What if there's a trolley heading towards your wife, and you can pull a level that will divert the trolley to a branch line where it will kill three Nazis. But it turns out your wife is a Nazi too, and one of the three branch-line Nazis is pregnant. But it was an incest rape and she prays every day. And your wife, well she makes graven images.
What then? WHAT THEN?
I think I can answer but to check a point about the wife first. Did you marry her in church or was it just a civil ceremony?
And which one? As we all know from the political news, at least one Christian sect does not recognise marriages made under other Christian sects.
If you mean denomination (Christianity might have once been described as a Jewish sect, but not generally now), then which one are you referring to?
The Roman Catholic church doesn't recognise non Catholic marriages, so Boris was effectively a Virgin until he married his Catholic 3rd wife Carrie at Westminster cathedral
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.
'Had an agreeable dinner' being a euphenism for 'getting shitfaced on expenses'
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
Yet the police continue to wonder why they have a recruitment problem. Chase suspects and get fired.
What offense were the two "suspects" in this incident, suspected of committing?
If you’re thinking about getting an e-bike, you’ll need to understand the UK law for electric bikes. It’s legal to ride an e-bike in the UK without a licence, but only if it meets certain requirements: it must be pedal assist instead of ‘twist and go throttle’; and have a maximum power output of 250 watts, with a speed restriction of 15.5mph.
It looked quicker than that to me so for starters -
Riding without a license, riding without insurance & riding without a helmet.
It's probably the former but a Dura Ace type figure has fiddled with the electronics.
Reflash the ESC with a torrented image to uncork the hot sauce. I've done a few. FTP.
I'd worry that a bike built for 15mph might develop interesting dynamics at higher speeds.
I found my unloaded touring bike had a steering instability when descending at 40+mph in the Dales.
[Don't grip the bars, don't brake hard, try gripping the top bar with your knees to change the resonance]
In his opening address Hugo Keith KC, the lead lawyer to the inquiry, did not shy away from difficult political questions.
The issue of Brexit and whether leaving the EU might have distracted politicians and civil servants from planning for the next pandemic is something victims’ groups have raised in the past.
Keith said that from 2018 onwards that departure and, in particular, planning for a possible no-deal Brexit, required an “enormous amount” of preparations to address “food and medicine supplies, travel and transport, business and borders and so on”.
“Did the attention paid to the risks of a no-deal exit, Operation Yellowhammer as it was known, drain the resources and capacity that should have been continuing the fight against the next pandemic?” he asked.
“Or did all that generic and operational planning, in fact lead to people being better trained and well-marshalled and in fact better prepared to deal with Covid...
Quote Message: My lady, on the evidence so far, and it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.” from Hugo Keith KC Lead lawyer to the inquiry My lady, on the evidence so far, and it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.”
Hugo Keith KC Lead lawyer to the inquiry
Given 'No Deal Prep' was mainly about political gameplaying it's more likely to have hindered not helped as regards the pandemic. So it looks like I agree with Hugo Keith.
This position requires believing that pandemic prep in Jan 2020 and pandemic prep in say Jan 2016 would be meaningfully different. The idea that we would have a genius world-beating pandemic reponse if it weren't for brexit is silly. We were caught on the hop by covid like most other countries. Doesn't mean lessons can't be learned, of course.
Nobody sane believes that absent Brexit we'd have been all fully prepped and chanting "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" at Covid when it first reared its ugly head. But you don't have to believe that to think (as Hugo and I do) that it more likely hindered than helped.
Come and have a go if you think you're R enough.
Oh god, the "R number". That takes me back as if I'm right there again. Yet at the same time it seems a dream. What a strange episode it was.
What if there's a trolley heading towards your wife, and you can pull a level that will divert the trolley to a branch line where it will kill three Nazis. But it turns out your wife is a Nazi too, and one of the three branch-line Nazis is pregnant. But it was an incest rape and she prays every day. And your wife, well she makes graven images.
What then? WHAT THEN?
I think I can answer but to check a point about the wife first. Did you marry her in church or was it just a civil ceremony?
And which one? As we all know from the political news, at least one Christian sect does not recognise marriages made under other Christian sects.
If you mean denomination (Christianity might have once been described as a Jewish sect, but not generally now), then which one are you referring to?
The Roman Catholic church doesn't recognise non Catholic marriages, so Boris was effectively a Virgin until he married his Catholic 3rd wife Carrie at Westminster cathedral
Briefly logs into PB for a bit of humorous diversion; PB doesn't disappoint
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.
Still not clear about what is wrong in admiring my neighbour's ass.
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
Yet the police continue to wonder why they have a recruitment problem. Chase suspects and get fired.
What offense were the two "suspects" in this incident, suspected of committing?
If you’re thinking about getting an e-bike, you’ll need to understand the UK law for electric bikes. It’s legal to ride an e-bike in the UK without a licence, but only if it meets certain requirements: it must be pedal assist instead of ‘twist and go throttle’; and have a maximum power output of 250 watts, with a speed restriction of 15.5mph.
It looked quicker than that to me so for starters -
Riding without a license, riding without insurance & riding without a helmet.
It's probably the former but a Dura Ace type figure has fiddled with the electronics.
Reflash the ESC with a torrented image to uncork the hot sauce. I've done a few. FTP.
I'd worry that a bike built for 15mph might develop interesting dynamics at higher speeds.
I found my unloaded touring bike had a steering instability when descending at 40+mph in the Dales.
[Don't grip the bars, don't brake hard, try gripping the top bar with your knees to change the resonance]
Loose/worn headset or hub bearing.
Thanks.
I would guess a loose headset, as it was a relatively new bike. Only a couple of thousand miles.
I've probably tightened it since, but I'm not so keen on rapid descents any more. Getting a bit old for spectacular crashes anyway.
On electric bikes - I would say 15mph is probably too fast to control for the people I see going to the shops. I'm not convinced going faster than you can pedal by your own effort is a good idea.
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
There's a book about the sack of Baltimore on the bookshelves in this house. It doesn't seem to be a secret. See also the Aubrey and Maturin novels.
I reckon, indeed I am 99% sure, that if you asked a typical British schoolchild, or even a Brit in their 20s, about the Muslim slave trade, they'd be surprised to learn it even existed, let alone that it was on such an epic scale (20-30m people?) and that it continued for 1400 years, well into the 20th century
I tried it on my older daughter - 17, and very bright, and very well read. She had no clue
I wouldn't be so sure. Given the controversy around Qatar and the world cup, and workers conditions there, it's an obvious parallel to draw with the history of Islamic and Arab slavery in past centuries. More people might have picked up bits of the history then you think.
She comes across in this interview with Gideon Rachman as bright, eloquent and knowledgeable. However I left it feeling distinctly uneasy. One of the comments below mentions all the things she fails to mention in her remarks. A couple of the things she did say left me a little flabbergasted. On the issue of democracy in China she thought that many young people had been put off by the 'chaos' in Hong Kong. I suppose chaos is one word you could use to describe it. As for tensions between the US and China she very much takes the 'both sides' approach, ignoring China's consistent wolf warrior diplomacy and belligerence. What of all the other countries in south east Asia and the threats they feel from the CCP? In her view the best way to resolve the conflict in the Taiwan strait is between the parties on both sides (suggesting that it is US involvement that is making war more likely). She mentions the one child policy in China and how the only child in her class at school who had a sibling was a Uighur. That was the last mention of Uighurs in the discussion.
This is one of our top universities but I've always felt there was something odd about the LSE. Remember Colonel Gaddafi's son? And it does seem to be the Labour Party's university of choice. Perhaps because it is more classless than Oxbridge seems to be?
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!
Amazing but true. On uniform swing, using the latest opinion polls, Labour are currently heading for 336 seats, just 10 more than they need for a majority. Peter Kellner said a few days ago that uniform swing is usually more reliable than proportional swing.
On that basis Labour may not get a majority in England even if it has one UK wide (especially if it is Labour gains from the SNP that get it over the line for an overall UK majority). Yet Gove idiotically scrapped EVEL
On Uniform swing, Major would have got a majority of about 60 in 1992
I just eagerly unwrapped my hotel pillow-chocolate and discovered it’s actually a mint
The disappointment is surprisingly severe
I once - in a hotel in Bruges - eagerly unwrapped my hotel pillow chocolate and was disappointed and bemused to find that it appeared actually to be a sleeping pill. I didn't use it. The hotel also had the slowest and smallest lift I have ever been in. Two people could fit in it, but not if they had any luggage.
Was it one of those old-fashioned ones with collapsible metal doors?
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
And how many Brits realize that it was not the British that put an end to Barbary pirates, but the newly formed American Navy?
Not true. It was a mix. Cromwell was the first to get a grip. The tune Rule Britannia celebrates the Royal Navy wiping out the Sale Rovers and the like - not our imperial vastness. That's why we shall "never never never be slaves"
The Americans also played a vital role alongside. US Marines taking out Tripoli, etc
That isn't the story behind Rule Britannia that I know - In the Lucy Worsley documentary it's described as a subversive song agitating for the UK to stop involving itself in continental land engagements like the War of the Spanish Succession and invest in Naval power instead. Something as relevant today as ever it was.
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
And how many Brits realize that it was not the British that put an end to Barbary pirates, but the newly formed American Navy?
Not true. It was a mix. Cromwell was the first to get a grip. The tune Rule Britannia celebrates the Royal Navy wiping out the Sale Rovers and the like - not our imperial vastness. That's why we shall "never never never be slaves"
The Americans also played a vital role alongside. US Marines taking out Tripoli, etc
That isn't the story behind Rule Britannia that I know - In the Lucy Worsley documentary it's described as a subversive song agitating for the UK to stop involving itself in continental land engagements like the War of the Spanish Succession and invest in Naval power instead. Something as relevant today as ever it was.
Based on a poem about Alfred the Great written by two Scots.
I remember a lot of articles about the Islamic slavery of schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram.
But perhaps that doesn't count.
How many Brits realise that Barbary pirates would seize entire Cornish villages - for slavery - as late as the 17/18th century?
And how many Brits realize that it was not the British that put an end to Barbary pirates, but the newly formed American Navy?
Not true. It was a mix. Cromwell was the first to get a grip. The tune Rule Britannia celebrates the Royal Navy wiping out the Sale Rovers and the like - not our imperial vastness. That's why we shall "never never never be slaves"
The Americans also played a vital role alongside. US Marines taking out Tripoli, etc
Hornblower fans might recognise the contribution of Lord Exmouth (aka Edward Pellow)
Comments
a friendthe King.Do adulterers get into heaven even if they have committed to Christ?
Seattle Times ($) - Trump scrambles to find lawyer on eve of first federal court appearance
Donald Trump spent the day before his historic appearance in federal court scrambling to find a qualified Florida lawyer willing to join his defense team as he faces the Justice Department’s first prosecution of a former president.
After touching down in Miami on Monday, Trump spent the afternoon interviewing prospective lawyers and meeting with his legal team, along with other top advisers, to discuss the case, in which he is accused of mishandling classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them . . .
Several prominent Florida attorneys declined to take Trump on as a client after two of the key lawyers handling the documents matter — Jim Trusty and John Rowley — resigned last week, according to people familiar with the matter.
Trusty and Rowley’s departure was sudden and unexpected, leaving Trump jockeying to identify a lawyer ahead of his Tuesday appearance in federal court in Miami, where rules require practicing attorneys to be a member in good standing of the Florida bar or to be sponsored by one before appearing. . . .
The 11th-hour flurry of action to hire a seasoned trial attorney was a familiar dance for Trump, who has had difficulty hiring and keeping lawyers over the course of numerous federal and state investigations since his 2016 election as president.
Disagreements over legal strategy have hindered the search for new defense attorneys . . . .
Jon Sale, a prominent Florida defense attorney who worked on the Watergate prosecution team and turned down the opportunity to join Trump’s defense team last year, said that the pros and cons of representing Trump are obvious.
“Without engaging in hyperbole, it’s arguably the biggest case in the world,” Sale said. “But the cons are illustrated by three of his four lawyers quitting in the last few weeks. He needs a good Florida lawyer with an impeccable reputation who is very experienced in this.”
The club of former Trump lawyers has a deep bench, highlighting the challenges his legal team is likely to face in the months ahead. Trump is known as a difficult client — he eschews legal advice, sometimes issues public threats to engage in illegal activity and frequently skips out on his legal bills. . . .
Another liability in representing Trump: his knack for putting his lawyers in a position to become witnesses against him. In spring 2022, Trump hired former federal prosecutor Evan Corcoran to help handle a subpoena issued by the Justice Department seeking the return of classified documents. But in March, a federal judge ordered Corcoran to turn over notes of his interactions with Trump, finding they could be evidence of a crime and thus were exempt from attorney-client privilege.
Quotes were featured in Trump’s indictment: Corcoran was referred to in the document as “Attorney 1.” . . .
SSI - HA! HA! HA!
It is always possible to plead guilty to a lesser charge than the one the CPS has filed. For example, if you are charged with murder, you can plead guilty to manslaughter even though that isn't the charge. She could have pleaded guilty to the lesser charge when this went to the magistrates' court even though she hadn't been charged with it at that stage. Indeed, her lawyer could have concluded a plea bargain with the CPS before it got that far, in which case she would have been charged with the lesser offence. None of that happened, so she loses some of the discount for pleading guilty.
From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country’s battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marine...
The Americans also played a vital role alongside. US Marines taking out Tripoli, etc
Seattle Times ($) - White House press secretary violated Hatch Act, watchdog agency finds
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre violated the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from promoting partisan politics while in their official capacity, for how she spoke about Republicans during official White House press briefings, a government watchdog agency found. But the agency also did not recommend any reprimand.
The Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that enforces the act, cited Jean-Pierre’s use of the phrase “mega MAGA Republicans” during news briefings leading up to the 2022 midterms as being in violation of the 1939 law, according to the letter dated June 7.
“Because Ms. Jean-Pierre made the statements while acting in her official capacity, she violated the Hatch Act prohibition against using her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election,” Ana Galindo-Marrone, who leads the agency’s Hatch Act Unit, wrote in the letter.
The office, however, did not recommend any reprimand, saying that Jean-Pierre may not have been told such phrasing was a violation.
“The White House Counsel’s Office did not at the time believe that Ms. Jean-Pierre’s remarks were prohibited by the Hatch Act, and it is unclear whether OSC’s contrary analysis regarding the use of ‘MAGA Republicans’ was ever conveyed to Ms. Jean-Pierre,” the letter stated.
Jean-Pierre has frequently cited the Hatch Act during press briefings, often using it as a reason she cannot answer reporters’ questions. White House spokesman Andrew Bates said Monday that the administration is reviewing the OSC’s opinion . . . .
A 2021 federal investigation found that at least 13 senior Trump administration officials violated the Hatch Act intentionally by mixing governing with campaigning before the 2020 election.
A scathing 60-page report from the Office of the Special Counsel said that a “willful disregard for the law” was “especially pernicious” during the Trump administration, saying many officials abused their government roles days before the November election. Trump — whose job it was to discipline his political appointees — allowed them to illegally promote his reelection on the job despite warnings to some from ethics officials, the report said. . . .
I found my unloaded touring bike had a steering instability when descending at 40+mph in the Dales.
[Don't grip the bars, don't brake hard, try gripping the top bar with your knees to change the resonance]
I tried it on my older daughter - 17, and very bright, and very well read. She had no clue
He was a traditionalist-minded old-school Jarhead!
ADDENDUM - "Tripoli Action" (1950) full movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XZZnWMP4CU&t=54s
They do have wings..
https://news.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news/update-on-city-centre-investigation-after-three-people-killed-468413
They’re not looking for anyone else, and believe the town is safe.
The original two deaths are believed to be students at the university, which has cancelled the graduation ball.
NEW THREAD
I would guess a loose headset, as it was a relatively new bike. Only a couple of thousand miles.
I've probably tightened it since, but I'm not so keen on rapid descents any more. Getting a bit old for spectacular crashes anyway.
On electric bikes - I would say 15mph is probably too fast to control for the people I see going to the shops. I'm not convinced going faster than you can pedal by your own effort is a good idea.
Is the west getting China wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeIXR8vcnXw
She comes across in this interview with Gideon Rachman as bright, eloquent and knowledgeable. However I left it feeling distinctly uneasy. One of the comments below mentions all the things she fails to mention in her remarks. A couple of the things she did say left me a little flabbergasted. On the issue of democracy in China she thought that many young people had been put off by the 'chaos' in Hong Kong. I suppose chaos is one word you could use to describe it. As for tensions between the US and China she very much takes the 'both sides' approach, ignoring China's consistent wolf warrior diplomacy and belligerence. What of all the other countries in south east Asia and the threats they feel from the CCP? In her view the best way to resolve the conflict in the Taiwan strait is between the parties on both sides (suggesting that it is US involvement that is making war more likely). She mentions the one child policy in China and how the only child in her class at school who had a sibling was a Uighur. That was the last mention of Uighurs in the discussion.
This is one of our top universities but I've always felt there was something odd about the LSE. Remember Colonel Gaddafi's son? And it does seem to be the Labour Party's university of choice. Perhaps because it is more classless than Oxbridge seems to be?