Labour now betting favourite in Mid Beds after Survation poll has them ahead with the LDs in third
It's a two-horse race?
The Liberal Democrats can't win here?
And they will fade pretty quickly if that perception takes hold. After all, other than embarrassing the government by losing a safe seat in a by election what is the point of the Lib Dems?
Personally I think they should come out for Rejoin. There's a solid block of people who would vote for that, almost regardless of other considerations. Not a majority, but lots more than their current polling.
Rejoin is LD policy, via closer alignment on SM and CU initially, followed later by full Rejoin.
Have just seen the poll in Mid Beds. Con 20 / Lab 20 / LD 15. As I said previously, whichever party is polling in the lead needs to be given the run. LibDems need to back off. We're trying to remove the Tories, not empower them.
Many thanks - not something I can say but I hope will be remembered when the LibDems are second in a constituency.
The party rules on that front are stupid. You can't say it. Even when we're the contender to remove the Tory and a Labour vote only helps prop up their hopes of clinging on.
Do we want to smash this monstrous party or not? Needs co-operation, and both Labour party rules and some activists are utterly pig-headed on the subject.
"Anyone who wants to get from Africa to Poland goes to our embassy, buys a stamped visa at a special stand, fills in their details and off they go! PiS [governing party] migration policy," wrote Donald Tusk, the leader of the opposition Civic Platform party, on X (formerly Twitter).
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
Unpleasant attitude that seems awfully close to that anaesthetists letter a few days ago.
Whether something's a shock or not, sexual assault is still wrong.
And the only way we're going to have women be treated with respect is if these concerns get aired, even when they're not shocking. Until they are.
I have no problem with such a portfolio of evidence being handed over to appropriate police forces and courts, but a trial by media risks prejudicing a fair trial.
That's upto the alleged victims, which do they prefer?
Too often victims are "encouraged" to keep the abuse quiet or dismissed or not taken seriously, and the same perpetrator abuses many people none of whom make the connection as they're all staying quiet.
The Me Too movement did a good job by letting people know they're not alone. That's a good thing, not something to be frowned upon.
When the allegations about Weinstein, or Harris, or other predators made it to light it encouraged other victims to step forward. That is a good thing.
Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.
That speaking up led to criminal trials, which is exactly what should happen. And what should happen here - if there is evidence for the allegations of crimes in the UK.
One of the problems in the UK is the now long delays for rape cases - even after investigation and charging - to go to trial, which is unfair on everyone.
Given that I have numerous sources of gossip - the only thing I can think about Russell Brand is how come it’s taken so long.. I remember when stories started rumbling about problems with an actor in Branagh’s version of Death on the Nile that he had finally be found out only for Armie Hammer’s name to come up in the news a day or so later…
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
Unpleasant attitude that seems awfully close to that anaesthetists letter a few days ago.
Whether something's a shock or not, sexual assault is still wrong.
And the only way we're going to have women be treated with respect is if these concerns get aired, even when they're not shocking. Until they are.
I have no problem with such a portfolio of evidence being handed over to appropriate police forces and courts, but a trial by media risks prejudicing a fair trial.
That's upto the alleged victims, which do they prefer?
Too often victims are "encouraged" to keep the abuse quiet or dismissed or not taken seriously, and the same perpetrator abuses many people none of whom make the connection as they're all staying quiet.
The Me Too movement did a good job by letting people know they're not alone. That's a good thing, not something to be frowned upon.
When the allegations about Weinstein, or Harris, or other predators made it to light it encouraged other victims to step forward. That is a good thing.
Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.
That speaking up led to criminal trials, which is exactly what should happen. And what should happen here - if there is evidence for the allegations of crimes in the UK.
Agreed 100%
The idea it is "take it to the Police, but otherwise STFU and say nothing in public" is the solution is not a working one.
All it does is make victims feel isolated and alone, and if the Police don't take them seriously then what can they do? Whereas if they speak up, and it turns out the same person has done this to many people, then the Police suddenly have to take them seriously.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
It doesn't seem to have damaged Andrew Tate with a certain demographic, just evidence of The Matrix out to get him.
There are parts of the Manosphere that aspire to be that sort of sexual predator.
Idle political fact - Flick Drummond was MP for Portsmouth South 2015-17, is the current MP for Meon Valley since 2019, and is the candidate for Winchester for the next GE.
Now, granted, her current seat is being abolished and about 1/4 of Winchester is made up of her current seat, but it's sufficiently different that I wonder if it is come kind of record to represent 3 different seats within what might be only a 9 year range (if she can win).
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
Because he is charismatic and liked by many. Obviously not many PB-ers, but hey
The fans will see an agenda to bring him down, the ambivalent might agree
Also, Brand has been “open” about his predatory womanizing, along with his drugging and drinking. This isn’t some Weinstein being unmasked, let alone a Jimmy Savile
That doesn’t excuse it, of course, but it is a different context to many attempted exposes
Idle political fact - Flick Drummond was MP for Portsmouth South 2015-17, is the current MP for Meon Valley since 2019, and is the candidate for Winchester for the next GE.
Now, granted, her current seat is being abolished and about 1/4 of Winchester is made up of her current seat, but it's sufficiently different that I wonder if it is come kind of record to represent 3 different seats within what might be only a 9 year range (if she can win).
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
What if you can’t afford to sue for libel? Admittedly, Brand easily can
Hmm. Mixed feelings about this
Far better for it to be done in court than on TV: what they are for
The other point about this is that if you are making an allegation, and you get sued, you've got to fund your own defence, and also it can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation if on the balance of probabilities you are found to be lying, which could be the outcome if you aren't well represented and up against a well resourced opponent. Most people aren't going to do it.
In some ways, the widespread dissatisfaction with how the legal system operates explains how a shadow justice system has emerged, where people get removed from public life by 'allegations of inappropriate behaviour', without any due process involved at all.
The whole situation is a mess. I have no idea what the answer is.
Funding the criminal justice system - while not the whole answer - would help.
Have just seen the poll in Mid Beds. Con 20 / Lab 20 / LD 15. As I said previously, whichever party is polling in the lead needs to be given the run. LibDems need to back off. We're trying to remove the Tories, not empower them.
Many thanks - not something I can say but I hope will be remembered when the LibDems are second in a constituency.
The party rules on that front are stupid. You can't say it. Even when we're the contender to remove the Tory and a Labour vote only helps prop up their hopes of clinging on.
Do we want to smash this monstrous party or not? Needs co-operation, and both Labour party rules and some activists are utterly pig-headed on the subject.
Labour and the Lib Dems are no more allies than Labour and the SNP. The fact that these parties are all on the centre-left makes them rivals, not bedfellows.
Amember of Margaret Thatcher’s government sexually abused vulnerable young girls at a residential home at the centre of a police investigation, former residents have claimed.
Between 1960 and 1993 thousands of “deprived girls” from Glasgow housing estates were sent on summer breaks to Fornethy House in the idyllic Angus countryside, north of Dundee.
Detectives and government ministers are already examining claims that the supposed holiday home, operated by Glasgow council, was run like a prison, with children as young as six being routinely beaten, force-fed and stripped naked for minor misdemeanours.
Now six women who visited in the 1970s have alleged they were molested at the sprawling 16th-century mansion by a group of “well-spoken men”, including Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC, the disgraced former solicitor-general for Scotland.
The survivors, now in their fifties and sixties, claim they were attacked after being ordered to sit on the knee of a florid, kilted man, who they now recognise as the late former Conservative MP for Perth and Kinross.
They allege they were taken to drink-fuelled parties where they were abused by men wearing tweed suits, tartan and formal dress.
It is claimed that another person who attended was Robert Henderson QC, a close friend of Fairbairn. In 2014 his daughter, Susie Henderson, now 56, waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she was raped by her late father, Fairbairn and other senior members of the Edinburgh legal establishment.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
What if you can’t afford to sue for libel? Admittedly, Brand easily can
Hmm. Mixed feelings about this
Far better for it to be done in court than on TV: what they are for
The other point about this is that if you are making an allegation, and you get sued, you've got to fund your own defence, and also it can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation if on the balance of probabilities you are found to be lying, which could be the outcome if you aren't well represented and up against a well resourced opponent. Most people aren't going to do it.
In some ways, the widespread dissatisfaction with how the legal system operates explains how a shadow justice system has emerged, where people get removed from public life by 'allegations of inappropriate behaviour', without any due process involved at all.
The whole situation is a mess. I have no idea what the answer is.
Funding the criminal justice system - while not the whole answer - would help.
As indeed would funding the NHS, the education system and the transport network.
But that would mean (a) taxing people and (b) working productively.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
Amember of Margaret Thatcher’s government sexually abused vulnerable young girls at a residential home at the centre of a police investigation, former residents have claimed.
Between 1960 and 1993 thousands of “deprived girls” from Glasgow housing estates were sent on summer breaks to Fornethy House in the idyllic Angus countryside, north of Dundee.
Detectives and government ministers are already examining claims that the supposed holiday home, operated by Glasgow council, was run like a prison, with children as young as six being routinely beaten, force-fed and stripped naked for minor misdemeanours.
Now six women who visited in the 1970s have alleged they were molested at the sprawling 16th-century mansion by a group of “well-spoken men”, including Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC, the disgraced former solicitor-general for Scotland.
The survivors, now in their fifties and sixties, claim they were attacked after being ordered to sit on the knee of a florid, kilted man, who they now recognise as the late former Conservative MP for Perth and Kinross.
They allege they were taken to drink-fuelled parties where they were abused by men wearing tweed suits, tartan and formal dress.
It is claimed that another person who attended was Robert Henderson QC, a close friend of Fairbairn. In 2014 his daughter, Susie Henderson, now 56, waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she was raped by her late father, Fairbairn and other senior members of the Edinburgh legal establishment.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
Because he is charismatic and liked by many. Obviously not many PB-ers, but hey
The fans will see an agenda to bring him down, the ambivalent might agree
Also, Brand has been “open” about his predatory womanizing, along with his drugging and drinking. This isn’t some Weinstein being unmasked, let alone a Jimmy Savile
That doesn’t excuse it, of course, but it is a different context to many attempted exposes
Weinstein was fairly open, I think. It's just that nobody cared in Hollywood. That crowd still lionise Polanski, after all.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
He will have committed rape when a court finds him guilty of committing rape. Not until.
As a prominent poster here will attest.
The Times has, I imagine, couched their accusation in rather more cautious terms.
Idle political fact - Flick Drummond was MP for Portsmouth South 2015-17, is the current MP for Meon Valley since 2019, and is the candidate for Winchester for the next GE.
Now, granted, her current seat is being abolished and about 1/4 of Winchester is made up of her current seat, but it's sufficiently different that I wonder if it is come kind of record to represent 3 different seats within what might be only a 9 year range (if she can win).
George Galloway, was MP for three different constituencies in the space of seven years.
Amember of Margaret Thatcher’s government sexually abused vulnerable young girls at a residential home at the centre of a police investigation, former residents have claimed.
Between 1960 and 1993 thousands of “deprived girls” from Glasgow housing estates were sent on summer breaks to Fornethy House in the idyllic Angus countryside, north of Dundee.
Detectives and government ministers are already examining claims that the supposed holiday home, operated by Glasgow council, was run like a prison, with children as young as six being routinely beaten, force-fed and stripped naked for minor misdemeanours.
Now six women who visited in the 1970s have alleged they were molested at the sprawling 16th-century mansion by a group of “well-spoken men”, including Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC, the disgraced former solicitor-general for Scotland.
The survivors, now in their fifties and sixties, claim they were attacked after being ordered to sit on the knee of a florid, kilted man, who they now recognise as the late former Conservative MP for Perth and Kinross.
They allege they were taken to drink-fuelled parties where they were abused by men wearing tweed suits, tartan and formal dress.
It is claimed that another person who attended was Robert Henderson QC, a close friend of Fairbairn. In 2014 his daughter, Susie Henderson, now 56, waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she was raped by her late father, Fairbairn and other senior members of the Edinburgh legal establishment.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
By 1900 the USA was the world's largest economy. One of several reasons that it drew so many immigrants.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
Unpleasant attitude that seems awfully close to that anaesthetists letter a few days ago.
Whether something's a shock or not, sexual assault is still wrong.
And the only way we're going to have women be treated with respect is if these concerns get aired, even when they're not shocking. Until they are.
I have no problem with such a portfolio of evidence being handed over to appropriate police forces and courts, but a trial by media risks prejudicing a fair trial.
That's upto the alleged victims, which do they prefer?
Too often victims are "encouraged" to keep the abuse quiet or dismissed or not taken seriously, and the same perpetrator abuses many people none of whom make the connection as they're all staying quiet.
The Me Too movement did a good job by letting people know they're not alone. That's a good thing, not something to be frowned upon.
When the allegations about Weinstein, or Harris, or other predators made it to light it encouraged other victims to step forward. That is a good thing.
Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.
That speaking up led to criminal trials, which is exactly what should happen. And what should happen here - if there is evidence for the allegations of crimes in the UK.
Agreed 100%
The idea it is "take it to the Police, but otherwise STFU and say nothing in public" is the solution is not a working one.
All it does is make victims feel isolated and alone, and if the Police don't take them seriously then what can they do? Whereas if they speak up, and it turns out the same person has done this to many people, then the Police suddenly have to take them seriously.
Women tend to know who the creeps are around them and that information does get shared on an informal basis. It is speaking up about it to the authorities to get something done which is more difficult and which is not done for a whole variety of reasons, some of them entirely understandable.
I did not report my rape to the police because I was young, ashamed, felt guilty and would have died rather than put my mother and family through the pain and heartache of knowing what had happened. It was a long time ago and maybe attitudes were different then. Police attitudes certainly were. So it is not just lack of knowledge that causes silence.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
Unpleasant attitude that seems awfully close to that anaesthetists letter a few days ago.
Whether something's a shock or not, sexual assault is still wrong.
And the only way we're going to have women be treated with respect is if these concerns get aired, even when they're not shocking. Until they are.
I have no problem with such a portfolio of evidence being handed over to appropriate police forces and courts, but a trial by media risks prejudicing a fair trial.
That's upto the alleged victims, which do they prefer?
Too often victims are "encouraged" to keep the abuse quiet or dismissed or not taken seriously, and the same perpetrator abuses many people none of whom make the connection as they're all staying quiet.
The Me Too movement did a good job by letting people know they're not alone. That's a good thing, not something to be frowned upon.
When the allegations about Weinstein, or Harris, or other predators made it to light it encouraged other victims to step forward. That is a good thing.
Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.
Just out of interest, imagine you are in the following situation. You are accused of sexual assault at work and have been found to have engaged in gross misconduct. You need to go in to a hearing to decide if you are to be dismissed. The detail is that you are accused of brushing against a female colleague inappropriately, even though you have no recollection of doing it. How do you defend yourself?
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
What if you can’t afford to sue for libel? Admittedly, Brand easily can
Hmm. Mixed feelings about this
Far better for it to be done in court than on TV: what they are for
The other point about this is that if you are making an allegation, and you get sued, you've got to fund your own defence, and also it can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation if on the balance of probabilities you are found to be lying, which could be the outcome if you aren't well represented and up against a well resourced opponent. Most people aren't going to do it.
In some ways, the widespread dissatisfaction with how the legal system operates explains how a shadow justice system has emerged, where people get removed from public life by 'allegations of inappropriate behaviour', without any due process involved at all.
The whole situation is a mess. I have no idea what the answer is.
Funding the criminal justice system - while not the whole answer - would help.
As indeed would funding the NHS, the education system and the transport network.
But that would mean (a) taxing people and (b) working productively.
(c) spending taxes that are raised on public services, rather than redistributing them towards client voters instead.
Idle political fact - Flick Drummond was MP for Portsmouth South 2015-17, is the current MP for Meon Valley since 2019, and is the candidate for Winchester for the next GE.
Now, granted, her current seat is being abolished and about 1/4 of Winchester is made up of her current seat, but it's sufficiently different that I wonder if it is come kind of record to represent 3 different seats within what might be only a 9 year range (if she can win).
George Galloway, was MP for three different constituencies in the space of seven years.
Charles James Fox was MP for Westminster, Orkney and then Westminster again from 1783-85, if that helps.
Amember of Margaret Thatcher’s government sexually abused vulnerable young girls at a residential home at the centre of a police investigation, former residents have claimed.
Between 1960 and 1993 thousands of “deprived girls” from Glasgow housing estates were sent on summer breaks to Fornethy House in the idyllic Angus countryside, north of Dundee.
Detectives and government ministers are already examining claims that the supposed holiday home, operated by Glasgow council, was run like a prison, with children as young as six being routinely beaten, force-fed and stripped naked for minor misdemeanours.
Now six women who visited in the 1970s have alleged they were molested at the sprawling 16th-century mansion by a group of “well-spoken men”, including Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC, the disgraced former solicitor-general for Scotland.
The survivors, now in their fifties and sixties, claim they were attacked after being ordered to sit on the knee of a florid, kilted man, who they now recognise as the late former Conservative MP for Perth and Kinross.
They allege they were taken to drink-fuelled parties where they were abused by men wearing tweed suits, tartan and formal dress.
It is claimed that another person who attended was Robert Henderson QC, a close friend of Fairbairn. In 2014 his daughter, Susie Henderson, now 56, waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she was raped by her late father, Fairbairn and other senior members of the Edinburgh legal establishment.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
The lady in question was already in a sexual relationship with Brand and turned up in the early hours of the morning at Brand’s house.
She then alleges Brand forced himself on her.
I personally have zero sympathy for Brand, but you can see why he might find sufficient wiggle-room here to shrug it off.
Compare also with Trump, who simply seems to have raped Jean Caroll (at least according to a civil court) out of the blue, and yet nobody seems to care.
Have just seen the poll in Mid Beds. Con 20 / Lab 20 / LD 15. As I said previously, whichever party is polling in the lead needs to be given the run. LibDems need to back off. We're trying to remove the Tories, not empower them.
Many thanks - not something I can say but I hope will be remembered when the LibDems are second in a constituency.
The party rules on that front are stupid. You can't say it. Even when we're the contender to remove the Tory and a Labour vote only helps prop up their hopes of clinging on.
Do we want to smash this monstrous party or not? Needs co-operation, and both Labour party rules and some activists are utterly pig-headed on the subject.
Labour and the Lib Dems are no more allies than Labour and the SNP. The fact that these parties are all on the centre-left makes them rivals, not bedfellows.
Define allies. We have a common enemy. Listen to the Ed Davey interview by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. His mission is to beat the Tories. That means putting Labour into office - not that they will get unconditional support, but that they are the preferred choice in a duopoly.
Idle political fact - Flick Drummond was MP for Portsmouth South 2015-17, is the current MP for Meon Valley since 2019, and is the candidate for Winchester for the next GE.
Now, granted, her current seat is being abolished and about 1/4 of Winchester is made up of her current seat, but it's sufficiently different that I wonder if it is come kind of record to represent 3 different seats within what might be only a 9 year range (if she can win).
She won't though, will she? I'm not surprised that she's got the worst of the available South Hampshire seats (Suella nabbed Fareham and Waterlooville, who got Hamble Valley?), but she's the sort of amiable non-frother the party will need if it wants to change tack.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
Because he is charismatic and liked by many. Obviously not many PB-ers, but hey
The fans will see an agenda to bring him down, the ambivalent might agree
Also, Brand has been “open” about his predatory womanizing, along with his drugging and drinking. This isn’t some Weinstein being unmasked, let alone a Jimmy Savile
That doesn’t excuse it, of course, but it is a different context to many attempted exposes
Russell has always been a gent when I have met him - and never once tried to force his attentions on me.
I was in Hawaii when he was there filming, where my wife was a producer. It was the time of the Sachs disclosures. He was very cut up by that.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
Russell Brand was a sex manic wrong'un, is anybody shocked? I am more shocked that such an open secret hasn't been reported before, especially after his self imposed exile from mainstream entertainment industry.
Interesting the coverage of this versus burying of similar (and worse) stories about journalists.
Nobody seems bothered the FT editor covered up a Guardian cover up about long term sexual abuse claims, and even after the NYT ran the story (after an FT who was a abused had to quit her job), nobody in the media seems interested.
Same with the paedo education correspondent from the Indy / New Statesman.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
By 1900 the USA was the world's largest economy. One of several reasons that it drew so many immigrants.
One of my favourite history books is the Glory and the Dream, a popular history of the US from 1932 until the 1970s. In one of the earlier chapters captain Eisenhower is sent from the Pentagon to Congress to advise what is to be done about the veterans of WW 1 who were living in the parks of Washington waiting for their bonuses to be paid. To do so he had to complete a chit and then catch the tram to Congress, being careful to keep a receipt. Pre-war the US really only had one military service of any seriousness, and that was the Navy. The army was as impoverished as the rest of the country and the airforce barely existed.
They did have fantastic industrial potential but it was only when that was properly applied to the armed forces in WW2 that they became a major military power.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
16-year-olds used to be regarded as young adults; somewhere along the line we changed to seeing them as older children. This happened in the last 20 years or so, possibly as a result of raising the de facto school leaving age to 18 or even 21, or because of the greater appreciation of power disparities. If you are 30, you have grown up in this world.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
Unpleasant attitude that seems awfully close to that anaesthetists letter a few days ago.
Whether something's a shock or not, sexual assault is still wrong.
And the only way we're going to have women be treated with respect is if these concerns get aired, even when they're not shocking. Until they are.
I have no problem with such a portfolio of evidence being handed over to appropriate police forces and courts, but a trial by media risks prejudicing a fair trial.
That's upto the alleged victims, which do they prefer?
Too often victims are "encouraged" to keep the abuse quiet or dismissed or not taken seriously, and the same perpetrator abuses many people none of whom make the connection as they're all staying quiet.
The Me Too movement did a good job by letting people know they're not alone. That's a good thing, not something to be frowned upon.
When the allegations about Weinstein, or Harris, or other predators made it to light it encouraged other victims to step forward. That is a good thing.
Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.
Just out of interest, imagine you are in the following situation. You are accused of sexual assault at work and have been found to have engaged in gross misconduct. You need to go in to a hearing to decide if you are to be dismissed. The detail is that you are accused of brushing against a female colleague inappropriately, even though you have no recollection of doing it. How do you defend yourself?
Nitpicking but if you've been found to have engaged in gross misconduct then the hearing has already happened, I assume you mean you're accused of gross misconduct?
I would probably say that I have no recollection of it happening and I'm sorry if it did, and it would have been unintentional if it happened because I don't recall it.
And if I were on a disciplinary panel then without further evidence to say otherwise I'd probably accept that.
OTOH then if it turns out that dozens of people come forward with the same accusation, then that puts meat on the bones and dismissal is probably the correct option. Which is why people should be encouraged to step forward, because if they do it can encourage others to realise they're not alone.
Counter-interest, imagine you are in the following situation.
You are a young woman [or man, it happens to men too] who has been sexually assaulted at work, by someone senior. You bring forward allegations via the appropriate channels but those get dismissed out of hand by people who don't want to hear it, or deal with it. What should you do?
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
Be interesting to see some of Huw Edwards supporters take on this.....
Russell Brand was a sex manic wrong'un, is anybody shocked? I am more shocked that such an open secret hasn't been reported before, especially after his self imposed exile from mainstream entertainment industry.
Interesting the coverage of this versus burying of similar (and worse) stories about journalists.
Nobody seems bothered the FT editor covered up a Guardian cover up about long term sexual abuse claims, and even after the NYT ran the story (after an FT who was a abused had to quit her job), nobody in the media seems interested.
Same with the paedo education correspondent from the Indy / New Statesman.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
What if you can’t afford to sue for libel? Admittedly, Brand easily can
Hmm. Mixed feelings about this
Far better for it to be done in court than on TV: what they are for
The other point about this is that if you are making an allegation, and you get sued, you've got to fund your own defence, and also it can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation if on the balance of probabilities you are found to be lying, which could be the outcome if you aren't well represented and up against a well resourced opponent. Most people aren't going to do it.
In some ways, the widespread dissatisfaction with how the legal system operates explains how a shadow justice system has emerged, where people get removed from public life by 'allegations of inappropriate behaviour', without any due process involved at all.
The whole situation is a mess. I have no idea what the answer is.
Funding the criminal justice system - while not the whole answer - would help.
It’s an essential building block though. Many rape cases are currently taking 5 years to get to court - that isn’t justice for anyone….
Have just seen the poll in Mid Beds. Con 20 / Lab 20 / LD 15. As I said previously, whichever party is polling in the lead needs to be given the run. LibDems need to back off. We're trying to remove the Tories, not empower them.
Many thanks - not something I can say but I hope will be remembered when the LibDems are second in a constituency.
The party rules on that front are stupid. You can't say it. Even when we're the contender to remove the Tory and a Labour vote only helps prop up their hopes of clinging on.
Do we want to smash this monstrous party or not? Needs co-operation, and both Labour party rules and some activists are utterly pig-headed on the subject.
Labour and the Lib Dems are no more allies than Labour and the SNP. The fact that these parties are all on the centre-left makes them rivals, not bedfellows.
Indeed - it's well known the Conservatives merely see Labour as the opposition while the LDs and others are the enemy.
The Conservatives know, even if they finish up with 100 seats next time, as long as they are the second largest party in the Commons, they remain the alternate Government and in time, whether that be five years or twenty five years, they will once again be the governing party.
The ultimate nightmare would be for them to finish third in terms of seats (seats matter, votes don't) as that would be an existential threat for the party. That's not likely currently or, short of a schism, at any time in the future so as long as the LDs are kept in their box defeat to Labour, although painful, is at least palatable.
In that regard, it proabably suits the Conservatives to see Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire (if the seat can't be held).
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
Be interesting to see some of Huw Edwards supporters take on this.....
I had almost forgotten that he existed (Edwards, that is). Its all gone very, very quiet.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
What if you can’t afford to sue for libel? Admittedly, Brand easily can
Hmm. Mixed feelings about this
Far better for it to be done in court than on TV: what they are for
The other point about this is that if you are making an allegation, and you get sued, you've got to fund your own defence, and also it can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation if on the balance of probabilities you are found to be lying, which could be the outcome if you aren't well represented and up against a well resourced opponent. Most people aren't going to do it.
In some ways, the widespread dissatisfaction with how the legal system operates explains how a shadow justice system has emerged, where people get removed from public life by 'allegations of inappropriate behaviour', without any due process involved at all.
The whole situation is a mess. I have no idea what the answer is.
Funding the criminal justice system - while not the whole answer - would help.
It’s an essential building block though. Many rape cases are currently taking 5 years to get to court - that isn’t justice for anyone….
There is the risk of being on remand of course, but it feels like it may be worth no one pleading guilty to anything, since lengthy delays and a system at breaking point must increase the odds of getting off even if you are in fact pretty guilty.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
Be interesting to see some of Huw Edwards supporters take on this.....
I had almost forgotten that he existed (Edwards, that is). Its all gone very, very quiet.
Its going to be like Labour report into Red Ken inability to get through an interview without mentioning Hitler / Jews, 3 years to write a report to work out he might have done some wrong stuff.
Amember of Margaret Thatcher’s government sexually abused vulnerable young girls at a residential home at the centre of a police investigation, former residents have claimed.
Between 1960 and 1993 thousands of “deprived girls” from Glasgow housing estates were sent on summer breaks to Fornethy House in the idyllic Angus countryside, north of Dundee.
Detectives and government ministers are already examining claims that the supposed holiday home, operated by Glasgow council, was run like a prison, with children as young as six being routinely beaten, force-fed and stripped naked for minor misdemeanours.
Now six women who visited in the 1970s have alleged they were molested at the sprawling 16th-century mansion by a group of “well-spoken men”, including Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC, the disgraced former solicitor-general for Scotland.
The survivors, now in their fifties and sixties, claim they were attacked after being ordered to sit on the knee of a florid, kilted man, who they now recognise as the late former Conservative MP for Perth and Kinross.
They allege they were taken to drink-fuelled parties where they were abused by men wearing tweed suits, tartan and formal dress.
It is claimed that another person who attended was Robert Henderson QC, a close friend of Fairbairn. In 2014 his daughter, Susie Henderson, now 56, waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she was raped by her late father, Fairbairn and other senior members of the Edinburgh legal establishment.
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Fraid so. I know the name, sure, but other than that? Meh.
Happens to all of us - when the news starts talking about Olivia Rodrigo and Mr Beast I'm vaguely aware of the names but am very clear it is for a generation not my own.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
In many countries the age of consent is 18, albeit there's an exception for prosecution for those of comparable ages.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
What if you can’t afford to sue for libel? Admittedly, Brand easily can
Hmm. Mixed feelings about this
Far better for it to be done in court than on TV: what they are for
The other point about this is that if you are making an allegation, and you get sued, you've got to fund your own defence, and also it can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation if on the balance of probabilities you are found to be lying, which could be the outcome if you aren't well represented and up against a well resourced opponent. Most people aren't going to do it.
In some ways, the widespread dissatisfaction with how the legal system operates explains how a shadow justice system has emerged, where people get removed from public life by 'allegations of inappropriate behaviour', without any due process involved at all.
The whole situation is a mess. I have no idea what the answer is.
Funding the criminal justice system - while not the whole answer - would help.
Ok - but isn't the root of the problem that it is too hard to prove these cases 'beyond reasonable doubt', because it is too easy to create plausible deniability on the part of the accused, particularly when both parties know each other?
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
16-year-olds used to be regarded as young adults; somewhere along the line we changed to seeing them as older children. This happened in the last 20 years or so, possibly as a result of raising the de facto school leaving age to 18 or even 21, or because of the greater appreciation of power disparities. If you are 30, you have grown up in this world.
One of the many things wrong with today's society is the infantilisation of adults and the adultisation of children. Ambiguity should be avoided here and an age of consent mandated and firmly observed. None of this sliding-scale gubbins of "oh she acted maturely": kids are kids, grown-ups are grown-ups, and the boundary is birthday X where "X" is defined in law
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
"Russell Brand is a sexual predator" is no shock at all.
The revelations are so flaccid they’ll likely have the opposite effects that that intentioned, and Brand is likely to actually garner some sympathy.
According to The Times article he committed rape. Why would that make someone sympathetic to him?
Being attacked, even if it is proven to be deserved later, is sufficient to make peopel sympathetic in some eyes.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
16-year-olds used to be regarded as young adults; somewhere along the line we changed to seeing them as older children. This happened in the last 20 years or so, possibly as a result of raising the de facto school leaving age to 18 or even 21, or because of the greater appreciation of power disparities. If you are 30, you have grown up in this world.
One of the many things wrong with today's society is the infantilisation of adults and the adultisation of children. Ambiguity should be avoided here and an age of consent mandated and firmly observed. None of this sliding-scale gubbins of "oh she acted maturely": kids are kids, grown-ups are grown-ups, and the boundary is birthday X where "X" is defined in law
We have got to stop treating children like adults and adults like children.
Some random political geek in about 2009.
Shame he never got into power to put that into effect.
Can't even remember his name now. Something like David Kilwhillie.
If your only fanbase is online, you're not A-list. Tom Cruise does not have a podcast
That's really not true. Some of the biggest stars for kids today are people who are almost entirely online. Nobody over 30 will have heard of them but they can still be hugely popular and make a lot of money across social media and streaming platforms.
Oh, I acknowledge the money, it's the influence over voting behavior I question.
In the 1960s/70s, 13 and over seems to have been considered fair game.
It’s very hard to understand that from the perspective of 2023, but I like the concept upthread that society deemed teenagers to be young adults as opposed to old children.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
In many countries the age of consent is 18, albeit there's an exception for prosecution for those of comparable ages.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
They certainy shouldn't be allowed to vote either....
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
In many countries the age of consent is 18, albeit there's an exception for prosecution for those of comparable ages.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
Please list the countries with an age of consent of 18, and I believe you - even you - will realise the insanity of your argument
Is this Dispatches programme going to be 90 mins of Wussselly Verbosity Brand allegations, or do we think the Times got that part of a wider story and there are others?
In the 1960s/70s, 13 and over seems to have been considered fair game.
It’s very hard to understand that from the perspective of 2023, but I like the concept upthread that society deemed teenagers to be young adults as opposed to old children.
In the 1920s a Labour MP went to the Home Secretary to ask for clemency for a constituent who had been sent to prison for three months.
The Home Secretary concerned declined. Knowing that this MP was a magistrate, he asked what sentence he would have given out.
'I'd have given the bastard double, Jix, but you see, he's a constituent.'
The crime was the violent rape of a twelve year old girl.
It's really disturbing to reflect that this was a time that wasn't tried on indictment and got a sentence barely longer than those twattish judges in Scotland and Stoke hand out today.
If your only fanbase is online, you're not A-list. Tom Cruise does not have a podcast
That's really not true. Some of the biggest stars for kids today are people who are almost entirely online. Nobody over 30 will have heard of them but they can still be hugely popular and make a lot of money across social media and streaming platforms.
Oh, I acknowledge the money, it's the influence over voting behavior I question.
Behaviour.
I don't have the level of fine motor control I used to have and US spelling is fractionally quicker. But yes, you are correct: my bad.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
16-year-olds used to be regarded as young adults; somewhere along the line we changed to seeing them as older children. This happened in the last 20 years or so, possibly as a result of raising the de facto school leaving age to 18 or even 21, or because of the greater appreciation of power disparities. If you are 30, you have grown up in this world.
One of the many things wrong with today's society is the infantilisation of adults and the adultisation of children. Ambiguity should be avoided here and an age of consent mandated and firmly observed. None of this sliding-scale gubbins of "oh she acted maturely": kids are kids, grown-ups are grown-ups, and the boundary is birthday X where "X" is defined in law
Where to draw the lines can be tricky sometimes, there will be strong debate about where it should lie, but I'd agree our cultural position on it can be pretty confused at present. In some ways we lionise youth, about listening to their views on things (people love a young activist) and mock the stuck in their ways of the middle aged and old, with a presumption from some that if the youth are into something that'd good. But on the other hand we sometimes act like people in their late teens and early 20s are still children, too fragile for the real world, and even communications to all adults is often framed in child like and patronising terms.
So, currently, it is probably around 50 million. No doubt there are more precise estimates, but given the number of illegals in the US, I think it unwise to put much faith in any of them.
This part surprised me, recently: "Roughly 4.6 million, or one-in-ten, Black people in the U.S. were born in a different country as of 2019, up from 3% in 1980. By 2060, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that this number will increase to 9.5 million, or more than double the current level (the Census Bureau only offers projections for single race groups)." source: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/01/20/one-in-ten-black-people-living-in-the-u-s-are-immigrants/
Yep. Not only that but Nigerians are the most likely immigrant group to have a degree. Despite being only 1% of Black Americans they are 25% of the Black students at Harvard Business School.
Given how much money it takes to get into an American college, it helps that they're all princes with millions to give away to anybody who'd answer their emails.
I know you were being funny (and it raised a smile) but as a philosophical question why is it ok to stereotype Nigerians as being scammers but not, say, to associate the Irish with being dumb?
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
We didn't 'roam free' - even in the days of Palmerston and 'Civis Romanus Sum', we were quite careful which enemies we picked. We were quite happy to bombard China, but we never seriously got into it with the USA, in fact after the US Civil War we compensated the Union for the damage done by the Alabama. We weren't omnipotent, and we were probably the better world power for it.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
I've been bitten twice by dogs in the last two weeks
Both shin-high, shouty, fluffy fuckers. It was like being attacked by noisy fur hats carrying staple removers
The one last week nipped my knee (she was on a doorstep above me, so could reach above the shins), she did pierce my skin but just left two red dots and a bruise
Yesterday another little bitch went for my shin. It got me just to the left of my left shin bone, about three inches below my knee. This one bit me with a little more conviction and did actually draw blood
Both of them are owned by lonely old ladies. Both are "rescue" dogs: both old ladies offered that information before they apologised for their little bitches' bad behaviour
As far as I can tell from reading history books, British hegemony didn’t fully and finally collapse until WW2.
The US were clearly economically stronger after WW1, but not necessarily considered militarily dominant and of course to some extent isolationist.
Culturally, Hollywood and popular music was clearly synonymously American after WW1, too, but intellectually Britain (London) was considered culturally superior until WW2.
Even after WW2, Britain assumed it was a kind of third power (whether or not the USA and USSR agreed) until Suez.
"Anyone who wants to get from Africa to Poland goes to our embassy, buys a stamped visa at a special stand, fills in their details and off they go! PiS [governing party] migration policy," wrote Donald Tusk, the leader of the opposition Civic Platform party, on X (formerly Twitter).
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
We didn't 'roam free' - even in the days of Palmerston and 'Civis Romanus Sum', we were quite careful which enemies we picked. We were quite happy to bombard China, but we never seriously got into it with the USA, in fact after the US Civil War we compensated the Union for the damage done by the Alabama. We weren't omnipotent, and we were probably the better world power for it.
Sure, but the superpower USA was restricted by the USSR and then China, and Britain had to at least be mindful of the USA and France, and so on
A superpower is not a hyper power. A hyperpower is a power able to exert military and political decisions, globally, without a thought for any other nation or agency. It has surely never existed, and that’s a good thing, it would be disastrous for humankind
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Comments
Do we want to smash this monstrous party or not? Needs co-operation, and both Labour party rules and some activists are utterly pig-headed on the subject.
The US population today is 332 million.
Back in 1910, it was about a quarter of that. So, immigration in the period running up to the First World War was about 3x the relative level of now.
One of the problems in the UK is the now long delays for rape cases - even after investigation and charging - to go to trial, which is unfair on everyone.
The idea it is "take it to the Police, but otherwise STFU and say nothing in public" is the solution is not a working one.
All it does is make victims feel isolated and alone, and if the Police don't take them seriously then what can they do? Whereas if they speak up, and it turns out the same person has done this to many people, then the Police suddenly have to take them seriously.
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
There are parts of the Manosphere that aspire to be that sort of sexual predator.
Now, granted, her current seat is being abolished and about 1/4 of Winchester is made up of her current seat, but it's sufficiently different that I wonder if it is come kind of record to represent 3 different seats within what might be only a 9 year range (if she can win).
The fans will see an agenda to bring him down, the ambivalent might agree
Also, Brand has been “open” about his predatory womanizing, along with his drugging and drinking. This isn’t some Weinstein being unmasked, let alone a Jimmy Savile
That doesn’t excuse it, of course, but it is a different context to many attempted exposes
But that would mean (a) taxing people and (b) working productively.
It was Lad, it was Bants, it is uncomfortably recent history.
Brand isn't the issue. The rest of us who chuckled along are.
Weinstein was fairly open, I think. It's just that nobody cared in Hollywood. That crowd still lionise Polanski, after all.
As a prominent poster here will attest.
The Times has, I imagine, couched their accusation in rather more cautious terms.
I shouldn’t, but: lol
Yes that is “fairly poor subbing”
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
I did not report my rape to the police because I was young, ashamed, felt guilty and would have died rather than put my mother and family through the pain and heartache of knowing what had happened. It was a long time ago and maybe attitudes were different then. Police attitudes certainly were. So it is not just lack of knowledge that causes silence.
You are accused of sexual assault at work and have been found to have engaged in gross misconduct. You need to go in to a hearing to decide if you are to be dismissed.
The detail is that you are accused of brushing against a female colleague inappropriately, even though you have no recollection of doing it.
How do you defend yourself?
She then alleges Brand forced himself on her.
I personally have zero sympathy for Brand, but you can see why he might find sufficient wiggle-room here to shrug it off.
Compare also with Trump, who simply seems to have raped Jean Caroll (at least according to a civil court) out of the blue, and yet nobody seems to care.
I was in Hawaii when he was there filming, where my wife was a producer. It was the time of the Sachs disclosures. He was very cut up by that.
He is a Rishi Sunak type figure, no culture whatsoever.
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
Interesting the coverage of this versus burying of similar (and worse) stories about journalists.
Nobody seems bothered the FT editor covered up a Guardian cover up about long term sexual abuse claims, and even after the NYT ran the story (after an FT who was a abused had to quit her job), nobody in the media seems interested.
Same with the paedo education correspondent from the Indy / New Statesman.
They did have fantastic industrial potential but it was only when that was properly applied to the armed forces in WW2 that they became a major military power.
I would probably say that I have no recollection of it happening and I'm sorry if it did, and it would have been unintentional if it happened because I don't recall it.
And if I were on a disciplinary panel then without further evidence to say otherwise I'd probably accept that.
OTOH then if it turns out that dozens of people come forward with the same accusation, then that puts meat on the bones and dismissal is probably the correct option. Which is why people should be encouraged to step forward, because if they do it can encourage others to realise they're not alone.
Counter-interest, imagine you are in the following situation.
You are a young woman [or man, it happens to men too] who has been sexually assaulted at work, by someone senior. You bring forward allegations via the appropriate channels but those get dismissed out of hand by people who don't want to hear it, or deal with it. What should you do?
The Conservatives know, even if they finish up with 100 seats next time, as long as they are the second largest party in the Commons, they remain the alternate Government and in time, whether that be five years or twenty five years, they will once again be the governing party.
The ultimate nightmare would be for them to finish third in terms of seats (seats matter, votes don't) as that would be an existential threat for the party. That's not likely currently or, short of a schism, at any time in the future so as long as the LDs are kept in their box defeat to Labour, although painful, is at least palatable.
In that regard, it proabably suits the Conservatives to see Labour win seats like Mid Bedfordshire (if the seat can't be held).
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Happens to all of us - when the news starts talking about Olivia Rodrigo and Mr Beast I'm vaguely aware of the names but am very clear it is for a generation not my own.
Mind you, I was a bit surprised that the plump guy with curly hair had been accused of sexually assaulting all those women.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK
USA
China
USSR (pending VAR)
Some random political geek in about 2009.
Shame he never got into power to put that into effect.
Can't even remember his name now. Something like David Kilwhillie.
It’s very hard to understand that from the perspective of 2023, but I like the concept upthread that society deemed teenagers to be young adults as opposed to old children.
(Deliberately written to allow misinterpretation)
I know who he is, but I was nine when Tears in heaven was released. Not my adult lifetime and before the birth of anyone 26.
The Home Secretary concerned declined. Knowing that this MP was a magistrate, he asked what sentence he would have given out.
'I'd have given the bastard double, Jix, but you see, he's a constituent.'
The crime was the violent rape of a twelve year old girl.
It's really disturbing to reflect that this was a time that wasn't tried on indictment and got a sentence barely longer than those twattish judges in Scotland and Stoke hand out today.
Both shin-high, shouty, fluffy fuckers. It was like being attacked by noisy fur hats carrying staple removers
The one last week nipped my knee (she was on a doorstep above me, so could reach above the shins), she did pierce my skin but just left two red dots and a bruise
Yesterday another little bitch went for my shin. It got me just to the left of my left shin bone, about three inches below my knee. This one bit me with a little more conviction and did actually draw blood
Both of them are owned by lonely old ladies. Both are "rescue" dogs: both old ladies offered that information before they apologised for their little bitches' bad behaviour
I'm expecting generous Christmas tips
The US were clearly economically stronger after WW1, but not necessarily considered militarily dominant and of course to some extent isolationist.
Culturally, Hollywood and popular music was clearly synonymously American after WW1, too, but intellectually Britain (London) was considered culturally superior until WW2.
Even after WW2, Britain assumed it was a kind of third power (whether or not the USA and USSR agreed) until Suez.
The accusation is corruption - that visas are being sold, illegally, on a mass scale.
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Talk about underwhelming.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
A superpower is not a hyper power. A hyperpower is a power able to exert military and political decisions, globally, without a thought for any other nation or agency. It has surely never existed, and that’s a good thing, it would be disastrous for humankind