Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
I'm sure they will be docked 2/24 x 1/365 of their wages during which time they will have been regular police officers available to be assigned for duty.
The police have the right to arbitrarily change role without negotiation? Weird.
I suppose that would explain how Dick ever managed to become chief constable...
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
Again; it's one rule for them and another rule for others. If I suddenly refused to do a part of my job, even a part I had volunteered for, at short notice and no discussion with my line manager - I would be reprimanded. And it's clear that this action was just throwing their toys out of the pram, a "they'll miss me when I'm gone" cry.
Firearms duty is a voluntary extra. They can hand in their ticket at any time. And there is always demand for beat coppers.
Meanwhile, all this talk of Bully XLs I bet a fair few on here, perhaps even moi, thought all very well with a South London schoolgirl but you could surely punch its lights out if it tried anything on our fair goodselves.
I bumped into one over the weekend. Well, it was out for a walk and the owners (charming, very much PLU) scrambled to put its lead on when they saw us (there were four of us, mounted, as it happens). It stood there on its lead looking at us. And it was jesusandmaryandtheweedonkeymotherfucking huge. Built just extraordinarily solidly. Like hewn from granite. There is no way on earth that anyone has any business owning a dog like that.
Agreed. I once had a close encounter with a pair of unmuzzled, off the leash dobermans, and remember thinking I might have taken one of them, but definitely not both at once. Only time I've ever been actually scared of a dog.
One of those things is probably a similar weight to the pair together.
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
Again; it's one rule for them and another rule for others. If I suddenly refused to do a part of my job, even a part I had volunteered for, at short notice and no discussion with my line manager - I would be reprimanded. And it's clear that this action was just throwing their toys out of the pram, a "they'll miss me when I'm gone" cry.
I mean yes, I get it. If they had all done this then there would be an issue.
I think they were bringing to peoples' attention the difficulties of working in a job where you can kill people and then being able to be penalised for doing that job, ie killing people. I think the action has done that quite well.
Not to say that the Met, along with other police forces is not a stinking den of corrupt, inept, and disingenuous coppers.
It is not their job to kill people. It is there job to try and prevent other people killing people, which may require them in specific circumstances, to kill people. Their must be a standard for what those circumstances are and sometimes there will be cases on that line and therefore they will be investigations. Even if cops shooting suspects is rare, I don't see why it is unreasonable for each shooting to be highly scrutinised.
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
I'm sure they will be docked 2/24 x 1/365 of their wages during which time they will have been regular police officers available to be assigned for duty.
The police have the right to arbitrarily change role without negotiation? Weird.
I suppose that would explain how Dick ever managed to become chief constable...
Being an AFO is a voluntary specialist role that brings certain responsibilities and duties as we have discovered with this case. It is possible to decide you don't want to do this. Will there be disciplinary repercussions? We shall see I suspect not.
Meanwhile, all this talk of Bully XLs I bet a fair few on here, perhaps even moi, thought all very well with a South London schoolgirl but you could surely punch its lights out if it tried anything on our fair goodselves.
I bumped into one over the weekend. Well, it was out for a walk and the owners (charming, very much PLU) scrambled to put its lead on when they saw us (there were four of us, mounted, as it happens). It stood there on its lead looking at us. And it was jesusandmaryandtheweedonkeymotherfucking huge. Built just extraordinarily solidly. Like hewn from granite. There is no way on earth that anyone has any business owning a dog like that.
Indeed. A friend of mine got menaced by one the other day
Walking around with one of those is like walking around with a flamethrower. With a rusty trigger. That might go off any minute. And the owner/carrier of the flamethrower is a known psycho
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
Again; it's one rule for them and another rule for others. If I suddenly refused to do a part of my job, even a part I had volunteered for, at short notice and no discussion with my line manager - I would be reprimanded. And it's clear that this action was just throwing their toys out of the pram, a "they'll miss me when I'm gone" cry.
I mean yes, I get it. If they had all done this then there would be an issue.
I think they were bringing to peoples' attention the difficulties of working in a job where you can kill people and then being able to be penalised for doing that job, ie killing people. I think the action has done that quite well.
Not to say that the Met, along with other police forces is not a stinking den of corrupt, inept, and disingenuous coppers.
It is not their job to kill people. It is there job to try and prevent other people killing people, which may require them in specific circumstances, to kill people. Their must be a standard for what those circumstances are and sometimes there will be cases on that line and therefore they will be investigations. Even if cops shooting suspects is rare, I don't see why it is unreasonable for each shooting to be highly scrutinised.
Absoblimminlutely they must be scrutinised. But to date the presumption has been that "it's complicated" and hence the former DPP interviewed on WatO, saying that he had never referred a case for prosecution.
So evidently something's up.
Surely it should make you happy that there is a prosecution which shows that their actions are being scrutinised. I jumped in to this conversation midway through but what was your issue with it all.
Meanwhile, all this talk of Bully XLs I bet a fair few on here, perhaps even moi, thought all very well with a South London schoolgirl but you could surely punch its lights out if it tried anything on our fair goodselves.
I bumped into one over the weekend. Well, it was out for a walk and the owners (charming, very much PLU) scrambled to put its lead on when they saw us (there were four of us, mounted, as it happens). It stood there on its lead looking at us. And it was jesusandmaryandtheweedonkeymotherfucking huge. Built just extraordinarily solidly. Like hewn from granite. There is no way on earth that anyone has any business owning a dog like that.
Indeed. A friend of mine got menaced by one the other day
Walking around with one of those is like walking around with a flamethrower. With a rusty trigger. That might go off any minute. And the owner/carrier of the flamethrower is a known psycho
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
Again; it's one rule for them and another rule for others. If I suddenly refused to do a part of my job, even a part I had volunteered for, at short notice and no discussion with my line manager - I would be reprimanded. And it's clear that this action was just throwing their toys out of the pram, a "they'll miss me when I'm gone" cry.
I mean yes, I get it. If they had all done this then there would be an issue.
I think they were bringing to peoples' attention the difficulties of working in a job where you can kill people and then being able to be penalised for doing that job, ie killing people. I think the action has done that quite well.
Not to say that the Met, along with other police forces is not a stinking den of corrupt, inept, and disingenuous coppers.
It is not their job to kill people. It is there job to try and prevent other people killing people, which may require them in specific circumstances, to kill people. Their must be a standard for what those circumstances are and sometimes there will be cases on that line and therefore they will be investigations. Even if cops shooting suspects is rare, I don't see why it is unreasonable for each shooting to be highly scrutinised.
Absoblimminlutely they must be scrutinised. But to date the presumption has been that "it's complicated" and hence the former DPP interviewed on WatO, saying that he had never referred a case for prosecution.
So evidently something's up.
Surely it should make you happy that there is a prosecution which shows that their actions are being scrutinised. I jumped in to this conversation midway through but what was your issue with it all.
I don't have an issue with this case being investigated - I have an issue with the general attitude from most people that "if a copper did it, it must be justified" as well as the intervention from Braverman and Sunak and the toy throwing of cops. Cops should be held to an extremely high standard when they do things that curtail peoples' freedoms prior to trial. Killing someone is the ultimate removal of an individual's freedom.
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
I'm sure they will be docked 2/24 x 1/365 of their wages during which time they will have been regular police officers available to be assigned for duty.
The police have the right to arbitrarily change role without negotiation? Weird.
I suppose that would explain how Dick ever managed to become chief constable...
Being an AFO is a voluntary specialist role that brings certain responsibilities and duties as we have discovered with this case. It is possible to decide you don't want to do this. Will there be disciplinary repercussions? We shall see I suspect not.
Were the protest to be extended and organised, then very likely there would be. As it seems as though it's going to be neither of those things, then you're probably right.
On topic: In the US, wealth is often a negative for Republican candidates, but not for Democratic candidates. Notable examples: FDR, the Kennedys, and, currently, California Governor Gavin Newsom.
There are ways Republicans can lessen that problem. For example, by putting their assets in a blind trust, after they are elected.
Or by showing they are in touch with average people, as George W. Bush did, in a number of ways. For example, by earning his money by providing something popular, a major league baseball team. (From time to time, he sat in the regular seats so he could listen to fans' thoughts about ways to improve their experiences at the ball park.)
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Trump tends if anything to exaggerate his wealth and business acumen for political advantage as a Republican, whereas Bloomberg was seen as an elitist who tried to buy the Democratic nomination.
It's possible those on the economic right find it a bit trickier overall if they are wealthy, however, simply because the type of policies they implement tend to be small state and low tax, and the obvious jibe is that this benefits them personally. A wealthy centre/left politician is less likely to be implementing the type of policies that can easily be portrayed as benefiting themselves and their friends.
In practice, only the wealthy have much chance to get ahead in US politics.
Joe Biden isn't massively wealthy, is he? Or at least he wasn't as VP - he made a lot from books/speaking engagements in his post-VP, pre-President period.
I mean, these things are relative - clearly, he is a lot wealthier than most Americans, and was well paid as a Senator for decades. But he's nowhere near the group of US politicians who can self-fund to a significant degree.
Wealthy populist demagogues often claim it's a virtue because they can't be bought. This is one of Donald Trump's lines and it's quite an effective one. Many of the suckers who follow him buy into it. 'The tough ass businessman beholden to nobody unlike your normal craven corrupt politicians'.
I'm sure it's been used in the past too, but the claim to be too rich to be bought was a very major part of Berlusconi's rise in the early 1990s.
Of course, it all rather overlooked the fact that Berlusconi was doing a fair amount of the buying of politicians in the 1980s - including the most famously corrupt PM, Craxi, under whom Berlusconi's business interests had flourished on the back of Government favours. And the theory was also wrong in the sense Berlusconi most certainly wasn't too rich to be bought, as it turns out.
I was rather reminded of this when Al Fayed died the other day, and one or two ludicrous characters lauded him for exposing Westminster corruption by, er, being intimately involved in it. Al Fayed's main gripe to his dying day wasn't that the MPs he bought were corrupt, but that they didn't deliver the goods.
In fairness, I think that particular journo has (?) always been quite staunchly Remain (if it's the one I'm thinking of). The Speccie has many writers who do not take the editorial line.
In fairness, I think that particular journo has (?) always been quite staunchly Remain (if it's the one I'm thinking of). The Speccie has many writers who do not take the editorial line.
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
Delta poll seems to be particularly jumpy so hard to draw too many conclusions . Best wait for some of the others to report.
I did expect a large bounce initially after Sunaks man of the people speech , it might have duped enough low information voters but the YouGov tracker seemed to pour cold water on that .
Sunak seized the agenda with his remarkable by-pass of Parliament speech. There was no right of reply and initially the client media fawned over it and promoted the false elements of the narrative. Same with IHT this week. But as these items fall out of the news cycle we will need a proper confected black swan.
A capital punishment speech in Downing Street to correspond with next summer's Lucy Letby trial has to be the cherry on the cake. Floated a day after Parliament recesses for summer. It's going to happen isn't it?
The thing about capital punishment is nobody is a single issue voter in support of it, and those that oppose it really oppose it. So I could see proposing bringing it back being a poll tax like event - mass disruption in the streets where lots of people just come out and say "no, that's too far".
I think it's a category error to compare it to the poll tax. The poll tax hit some people disproportionately in their pockets - in fact the kind of people who are most likely to support bringing back the death penalty.
Potentially, but I think even a load of wet libs will be up in arms about it and willing to protest. It is just something that, once you've decided is bad, is hard to bring back (because the arguments for it are bad). It isn't a deterrent, it isn't a fitting punishment, and innocent people will be killed by the state and those people will be disproportionately poor and from minority backgrounds. People just won't stand for it.
Perhaps it should be put to a referendum so that we can decide it democratically?
Well that went so well last time. I suspect the outcome would be similar. 52 to 48.
The benefit for proponents, just like Brexit is it can be simplified to its emotional core. For example, Lucy Letby murdered innocent little babies, if you don't vote to execute Lucy Letby, you are condoning murdering little tiny, innocent babies. Or what about executing Gary Glitter, or Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley, or Ian Watkins. Even I am tempted (no not really).
I think state executions, or executions on my behalf are immoral and reprehensible, but that's my opinion. When non-believers like me decide to promote executions for a cheap vote, that is despicable. It will happen before the election.
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They did not go on strike.
I don't think that line would pass any sort of duck test.
The Lib Dem conference has rebelled against the leadership's NIMBYism - good.
Absolutely fantastic!
If they respect the conference vote then there might actually be one party worth voting for.
They have to, it’s in the party constitution.
That's cute.
Like Clegg had to follow the policy of abolishing tuition fees? Certainly not tripling them instead?
If Davey comes out unambiguously against NIMBYism and is explicitly pro construction then I'd have far more faith to be able to cast my ballot. But leaders who disagree with conference motions can easily find ways around them.
Delta poll seems to be particularly jumpy so hard to draw too many conclusions . Best wait for some of the others to report.
I did expect a large bounce initially after Sunaks man of the people speech , it might have duped enough low information voters but the YouGov tracker seemed to pour cold water on that .
Sunak seized the agenda with his remarkable by-pass of Parliament speech. There was no right of reply and initially the client media fawned over it and promoted the false elements of the narrative. Same with IHT this week. But as these items fall out of the news cycle we will need a proper confected black swan.
A capital punishment speech in Downing Street to correspond with next summer's Lucy Letby trial has to be the cherry on the cake. Floated a day after Parliament recesses for summer. It's going to happen isn't it?
The thing about capital punishment is nobody is a single issue voter in support of it, and those that oppose it really oppose it. So I could see proposing bringing it back being a poll tax like event - mass disruption in the streets where lots of people just come out and say "no, that's too far".
I think it's a category error to compare it to the poll tax. The poll tax hit some people disproportionately in their pockets - in fact the kind of people who are most likely to support bringing back the death penalty.
Potentially, but I think even a load of wet libs will be up in arms about it and willing to protest. It is just something that, once you've decided is bad, is hard to bring back (because the arguments for it are bad). It isn't a deterrent, it isn't a fitting punishment, and innocent people will be killed by the state and those people will be disproportionately poor and from minority backgrounds. People just won't stand for it.
Perhaps it should be put to a referendum so that we can decide it democratically?
Well that went so well last time. I suspect the outcome would be similar. 52 to 48.
The benefit for proponents, just like Brexit is it can be simplified to its emotional core. For example, Lucy Letby murdered innocent little babies, if you don't vote to execute Lucy Letby, you are condoning murdering little tiny, innocent babies. Or what about executing Gary Glitter, or Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley, or Ian Watkins. Even I am tempted (no not really).
I think state executions, or executions on my behalf are immoral and reprehensible, but that's my opinion. When non-believers like me decide to promote executions for a cheap vote, that is despicable. It will happen before the election.
Don't feed the troll @williamglenn is a spoof account – has been strident eurofederalist; left-liberal libertarian; Trumpian Hillary-hating nationalist; and now Brexiteer hangem–and–flogem authoritarian
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more . I wish there was a way of banning any leaver from getting an EU passport !
In fairness, I think that particular journo has (?) always been quite staunchly Remain (if it's the one I'm thinking of). The Speccie has many writers who do not take the editorial line.
Delta poll seems to be particularly jumpy so hard to draw too many conclusions . Best wait for some of the others to report.
I did expect a large bounce initially after Sunaks man of the people speech , it might have duped enough low information voters but the YouGov tracker seemed to pour cold water on that .
Sunak seized the agenda with his remarkable by-pass of Parliament speech. There was no right of reply and initially the client media fawned over it and promoted the false elements of the narrative. Same with IHT this week. But as these items fall out of the news cycle we will need a proper confected black swan.
A capital punishment speech in Downing Street to correspond with next summer's Lucy Letby trial has to be the cherry on the cake. Floated a day after Parliament recesses for summer. It's going to happen isn't it?
The thing about capital punishment is nobody is a single issue voter in support of it, and those that oppose it really oppose it. So I could see proposing bringing it back being a poll tax like event - mass disruption in the streets where lots of people just come out and say "no, that's too far".
I think it's a category error to compare it to the poll tax. The poll tax hit some people disproportionately in their pockets - in fact the kind of people who are most likely to support bringing back the death penalty.
Potentially, but I think even a load of wet libs will be up in arms about it and willing to protest. It is just something that, once you've decided is bad, is hard to bring back (because the arguments for it are bad). It isn't a deterrent, it isn't a fitting punishment, and innocent people will be killed by the state and those people will be disproportionately poor and from minority backgrounds. People just won't stand for it.
Perhaps it should be put to a referendum so that we can decide it democratically?
Well that went so well last time. I suspect the outcome would be similar. 52 to 48.
The benefit for proponents, just like Brexit is it can be simplified to its emotional core. For example, Lucy Letby murdered innocent little babies, if you don't vote to execute Lucy Letby, you are condoning murdering little tiny, innocent babies. Or what about executing Gary Glitter, or Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley, or Ian Watkins. Even I am tempted (no not really).
I think state executions, or executions on my behalf are immoral and reprehensible, but that's my opinion. When non-believers like me decide to promote executions for a cheap vote, that is despicable. It will happen before the election.
Don't feed the troll @williamglenn is a spoof account – has been strident eurofederalist; left-liberal libertarian; Trumpian Hillary-hating nationalist; and now Brexiteer hangem–and–flogem authoritarian
I preferred the post- referendum Euro Federalist @williamglenn
In fairness, I think that particular journo has (?) always been quite staunchly Remain (if it's the one I'm thinking of). The Speccie has many writers who do not take the editorial line.
No, he voted Brexit.
Fair enough. I must be thinking of someone else.
The other (more famous, Beyond the Fringe and all that, but now dead), Jonathan Miller maybe?
Again, it is this attitude of cops being above the law that is part of the problem with the narrative at the moment. We're not hearing "your job is too important to the public safety for you to strike" - which is what has been argued for other sectors. Armed police are a luxury we don't need, perhaps?
The Met armed officers going on some sort of strike action only to be supported by government ministers is a significant moment. Police in Britain aren't allowed to form unions or take industrial action. Even if they were, this would constitute illegal industrial action.
What consequences will there be for those officers who went on strike? I mean, it's not like there was a proper ballot, so this was effectively wildcat action and would therefore have been illegal even if the police did ordinarily have the right to strike.
We probably can't afford to sack the 300 in one go - that's more than 10% of the total number of armed officers in the Met. But equally, it can't be right that they merely lose a day's pay - they've shown that they're prepared to break the law, which is pretty fucking serious given that they're entrusted with such a great responsibility.
They're not on strike, they're just not prepared to carry a firearm. It's an entirely voluntary decision for officers. They'll police as the 99% of non firearm officers do.
But the job they're paid to do is to be a firearms officer - so by not being prepared to carry a firearm, they made themselves unavailable for work. If they wanted to work in a different role, they should have negotiated that in the normal way with their line management.
Sure, we can't force someone to do their job - but if they choose not to do it, then they should face the consequences.
Again; it's one rule for them and another rule for others. If I suddenly refused to do a part of my job, even a part I had volunteered for, at short notice and no discussion with my line manager - I would be reprimanded. And it's clear that this action was just throwing their toys out of the pram, a "they'll miss me when I'm gone" cry.
I mean yes, I get it. If they had all done this then there would be an issue.
I think they were bringing to peoples' attention the difficulties of working in a job where you can kill people and then being able to be penalised for doing that job, ie killing people. I think the action has done that quite well.
Not to say that the Met, along with other police forces is not a stinking den of corrupt, inept, and disingenuous coppers.
It is not their job to kill people. It is there job to try and prevent other people killing people, which may require them in specific circumstances, to kill people. Their must be a standard for what those circumstances are and sometimes there will be cases on that line and therefore they will be investigations. Even if cops shooting suspects is rare, I don't see why it is unreasonable for each shooting to be highly scrutinised.
Absoblimminlutely they must be scrutinised. But to date the presumption has been that "it's complicated" and hence the former DPP interviewed on WatO, saying that he had never referred a case for prosecution.
So evidently something's up.
Surely it should make you happy that there is a prosecution which shows that their actions are being scrutinised. I jumped in to this conversation midway through but what was your issue with it all.
I don't have an issue with this case being investigated - I have an issue with the general attitude from most people that "if a copper did it, it must be justified" as well as the intervention from Braverman and Sunak and the toy throwing of cops. Cops should be held to an extremely high standard when they do things that curtail peoples' freedoms prior to trial. Killing someone is the ultimate removal of an individual's freedom.
"general attitude from most people"??
What planet are you on? Have you not read the newspapers over the past 40 years. Have you not listened to Mark Rowley opine on the problems he faces in reforming the Met?
I would say that the "general attitude from most people" is the presumption now that the police are guilty and they must be proven innocent. Whether that's justified or not.
The Lib Dem conference has rebelled against the leadership's NIMBYism - good.
Absolutely fantastic!
If they respect the conference vote then there might actually be one party worth voting for.
They have to, it’s in the party constitution.
That's cute.
Like Clegg had to follow the policy of abolishing tuition fees? Certainly not tripling them instead?
If Davey comes out unambiguously against NIMBYism and is explicitly pro construction then I'd have far more faith to be able to cast my ballot. But leaders who disagree with conference motions can easily find ways around them.
That and the coalition had to be voted by the membership, and there have been a number of policies proposed by leadership which were defeated at conference and as a result not pursued. So I fully expect Davey won’t try to remove the target again, at least not until next year’s conference (by which time we may be in mid election campaign).
Whether that means Davey will be coming out explicitly anti-NIMBY is a different question. He would argue he is already. The issue has been more in local campaigns in the green belt where national policy (which by almost all accounts has been pro construction for some time) and local activism often contradict each other.
I know from my local party that there’s the same generational divide on this as there is in the country as a whole. But then 95% of all people over 50 I’ve ever encountered in the context of planning have been anti-development, of whatever party. Around me most people are labour voters but that doesn’t stop them objecting to anything that gets to the planning department.
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Absent the Irish passport, he could have just taken the equivalent of settled status in France.
The Lib Dem conference has rebelled against the leadership's NIMBYism - good.
Absolutely fantastic!
If they respect the conference vote then there might actually be one party worth voting for.
"It was, in fairness, a great speech by Farron. National targets, he said, do "naff all" to build houses. He called the amendment "the most right wing thing I've seen at Lib Dem conference since we sent Liz Truss off undercover."!
In fairness, I think that particular journo has (?) always been quite staunchly Remain (if it's the one I'm thinking of). The Speccie has many writers who do not take the editorial line.
No, he voted Brexit.
Fair enough. I must be thinking of someone else.
The other (more famous, Beyond the Fringe and all that, but now dead), Jonathan Miller maybe?
I've only just noticed that I've subconsciously being assuming it was that Jonathan Miller (i.e. the BTF one) who wrote in the Spectator. Silly me.
No, I remember an article by one of their regulars who was characteristically grumpy that the Speccie had back Brexit. Perhaps it was that one and he had already changed his mind by then, or perhaps it was one of the others. They certainly have some pro-European voices. Nick Tyrone is one, I think. But I don't think it wasn't him, either.
I don't keep track of these things particularly closely. I was only half-confident of being right on that one. Hence the (?).
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more . I wish there was a way of banning any leaver from getting an EU passport !
If we ever rejoin they can keep their blue passports and stand in the non-EU line at the airport.
Delta poll seems to be particularly jumpy so hard to draw too many conclusions . Best wait for some of the others to report.
I did expect a large bounce initially after Sunaks man of the people speech , it might have duped enough low information voters but the YouGov tracker seemed to pour cold water on that .
Sunak seized the agenda with his remarkable by-pass of Parliament speech. There was no right of reply and initially the client media fawned over it and promoted the false elements of the narrative. Same with IHT this week. But as these items fall out of the news cycle we will need a proper confected black swan.
A capital punishment speech in Downing Street to correspond with next summer's Lucy Letby trial has to be the cherry on the cake. Floated a day after Parliament recesses for summer. It's going to happen isn't it?
The thing about capital punishment is nobody is a single issue voter in support of it, and those that oppose it really oppose it. So I could see proposing bringing it back being a poll tax like event - mass disruption in the streets where lots of people just come out and say "no, that's too far".
I think it's a category error to compare it to the poll tax. The poll tax hit some people disproportionately in their pockets - in fact the kind of people who are most likely to support bringing back the death penalty.
Potentially, but I think even a load of wet libs will be up in arms about it and willing to protest. It is just something that, once you've decided is bad, is hard to bring back (because the arguments for it are bad). It isn't a deterrent, it isn't a fitting punishment, and innocent people will be killed by the state and those people will be disproportionately poor and from minority backgrounds. People just won't stand for it.
Perhaps it should be put to a referendum so that we can decide it democratically?
Well that went so well last time. I suspect the outcome would be similar. 52 to 48.
The benefit for proponents, just like Brexit is it can be simplified to its emotional core. For example, Lucy Letby murdered innocent little babies, if you don't vote to execute Lucy Letby, you are condoning murdering little tiny, innocent babies. Or what about executing Gary Glitter, or Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley, or Ian Watkins. Even I am tempted (no not really).
I think state executions, or executions on my behalf are immoral and reprehensible, but that's my opinion. When non-believers like me decide to promote executions for a cheap vote, that is despicable. It will happen before the election.
Don't feed the troll @williamglenn is a spoof account – has been strident eurofederalist; left-liberal libertarian; Trumpian Hillary-hating nationalist; and now Brexiteer hangem–and–flogem authoritarian
With respect @Williamglenn is a long established poster and whilst he has changed his mind on issues, as we all do, he is no more a troll then you are
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more . I wish there was a way of banning any leaver from getting an EU passport !
If we ever rejoin they can keep their blue passports and stand in the non-EU line at the airport.
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more . I wish there was a way of banning any leaver from getting an EU passport !
If we ever rejoin they can keep their blue passports and stand in the non-EU line at the airport.
We will not rejoin.
Don't you believe Starmer?
Starmer's not immortal. Neither is a single mandate at a moment in time.
If Brexit delivers for the British people, it will stick. If it doesn't, it won't deserve to.
I see Ukraine has claimed to have killed the Commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet in its strike on Sevastopol. Quite a thing, Not independently verified but they must be confident as its quite simple for the Russians to prove otherwise if he's still breathing!
Even if the offensive grinds to a halt due to winter weather the fact that the Ukrainians can just pick off targets like that must be pretty bad news for the Russians in occupied Ukraine. And this is before the US-supplied ATACMS arrive.
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more . I wish there was a way of banning any leaver from getting an EU passport !
If we ever rejoin they can keep their blue passports and stand in the non-EU line at the airport.
We will not rejoin.
Don't you believe Starmer?
I believe we won't rejoin in the first term of a Starmer led government, absolutely. Beyond that who knows? I think our chances of rejoining in the next 30 years are more than 50% but I wouldn't go further than that.
That's him as Constituency MP as opposed to LOTO or PM.
Ah, that's ok then. ?
It's the context needed to understand what's going on there. MPs have this 'constituency interest vs national interest' issue sometimes. It's in the nature of our system.
That's him as Constituency MP as opposed to LOTO or PM.
Ah, that's ok then. ?
It's the context needed to understand what's going on there. MPs have this 'constituency interest vs national interest' issue sometimes. It's in the nature of our system.
I don't think I agree with you. Any other MP who objected to HS2 going through their constituency would be, rightly, unambiguously tarred as ant-HS2 (like Graham Brady with the Golborne Link).
Now, it could be the case that his petition wasn't "don't do HS2" but was "make this change to the way it affects my constituency". Many MPs have done that (like Angela Rayner, for example - who was very clear throughout that she DID support HS2 in principle.) But the tweet appeared to give the impression that he opposed it.
If I get ten minutes later I shall look up his petition.
What a twat. Voted for Brexit but lives in France. Rescued from paying the price for his own stupidity by a fortuitously Irish grandparent, while closing off hassle-free European residency and travel to the rest of us.
Couldn’t agree more . I wish there was a way of banning any leaver from getting an EU passport !
If we ever rejoin they can keep their blue passports and stand in the non-EU line at the airport.
We will not rejoin.
Don't you believe Starmer?
I believe we won't rejoin in the first term of a Starmer led government, absolutely. Beyond that who knows? I think our chances of rejoining in the next 30 years are more than 50% but I wouldn't go further than that.
I hope I’ll live long enough to celebrate Rejoining. I’m 85 now!
That's him as Constituency MP as opposed to LOTO or PM.
So you are saying that, like our own beloved @HYUFD, he is allowed not to actually believe in anything and supports issues as long as they are expedient and serve his current purpose?
Fair enough.
I'm explaining why this particular difference arises. The 'constituency vs national interest' tension inherent in our system. Good thing or bad thing? I'd go with just 'thing'.
That's him as Constituency MP as opposed to LOTO or PM.
Ah, that's ok then. ?
It's the context needed to understand what's going on there. MPs have this 'constituency interest vs national interest' issue sometimes. It's in the nature of our system.
I don't think I agree with you. Any other MP who objected to HS2 going through their constituency would be, rightly, unambiguously tarred as ant-HS2 (like Graham Brady with the Golborne Link).
Now, it could be the case that his petition wasn't "don't do HS2" but was "make this change to the way it affects my constituency". Many MPs have done that (like Angela Rayner, for example - who was very clear throughout that she DID support HS2 in principle.) But the tweet appeared to give the impression that he opposed it.
If I get ten minutes later I shall look up his petition.
Look at all the West London MPs (all parties) opposing Heathrow extension. Why? Because they know if they don't they'll likely be out on their ear. It's nothing to do with whether it makes sense for the country or not. Only MPs with seats elsewhere have the luxury of viewing it mainly through that lens.
Comments
I suppose that would explain how Dick ever managed to become chief constable...
I once had a close encounter with a pair of unmuzzled, off the leash dobermans, and remember thinking I might have taken one of them, but definitely not both at once.
Only time I've ever been actually scared of a dog.
One of those things is probably a similar weight to the pair together.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12554797/XL-Bully-campaigner-attacked-dog.html
So evidently something's up.
Surely it should make you happy that there is a prosecution which shows that their actions are being scrutinised. I jumped in to this conversation midway through but what was your issue with it all.
Just ban them NOW
As it seems as though it's going to be neither of those things, then you're probably right.
Of course, it all rather overlooked the fact that Berlusconi was doing a fair amount of the buying of politicians in the 1980s - including the most famously corrupt PM, Craxi, under whom Berlusconi's business interests had flourished on the back of Government favours. And the theory was also wrong in the sense Berlusconi most certainly wasn't too rich to be bought, as it turns out.
I was rather reminded of this when Al Fayed died the other day, and one or two ludicrous characters lauded him for exposing Westminster corruption by, er, being intimately involved in it. Al Fayed's main gripe to his dying day wasn't that the MPs he bought were corrupt, but that they didn't deliver the goods.
The benefit for proponents, just like Brexit is it can be simplified to its emotional core. For example, Lucy Letby murdered innocent little babies, if you don't vote to execute Lucy Letby, you are condoning murdering little tiny, innocent babies. Or what about executing Gary Glitter, or Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley, or Ian Watkins. Even I am tempted (no not really).
I think state executions, or executions on my behalf are immoral and reprehensible, but that's my opinion. When non-believers like me decide to promote executions for a cheap vote, that is despicable. It will happen before the election.
The Lib Dem conference has rebelled against the leadership's NIMBYism - good.
If they respect the conference vote then there might actually be one party worth voting for.
Like Clegg had to follow the policy of abolishing tuition fees? Certainly not tripling them instead?
If Davey comes out unambiguously against NIMBYism and is explicitly pro construction then I'd have far more faith to be able to cast my ballot. But leaders who disagree with conference motions can easily find ways around them.
What planet are you on? Have you not read the newspapers over the past 40 years. Have you not listened to Mark Rowley opine on the problems he faces in reforming the Met?
I would say that the "general attitude from most people" is the presumption now that the police are guilty and they must be proven innocent. Whether that's justified or not.
of policies proposed by leadership which were defeated at conference and as a result not pursued. So I fully expect Davey won’t try to remove the target again, at least not until next year’s conference (by which time we may be in mid election campaign).
Whether that means Davey will be coming out explicitly anti-NIMBY is a different question. He would argue he is already. The issue has been more in local campaigns in the green belt where national policy (which by almost all accounts has been pro construction for some time) and local activism often contradict each other.
I know from my local party that there’s the same generational divide on this as there is in the country as a whole. But then 95% of all people over 50 I’ve ever encountered in the context of planning have been anti-development, of whatever party. Around me most people are labour voters but that doesn’t stop them objecting to anything that gets to the planning department.
LOL
No, I remember an article by one of their regulars who was characteristically grumpy that the Speccie had back Brexit. Perhaps it was that one and he had already changed his mind by then, or perhaps it was one of the others. They certainly have some pro-European voices. Nick Tyrone is one, I think. But I don't think it wasn't him, either.
I don't keep track of these things particularly closely. I was only half-confident of being right on that one. Hence the (?).
Don't you believe Starmer?
They are all not recent
If Brexit delivers for the British people, it will stick. If it doesn't, it won't deserve to.
Qué Sera, Sera...
Even if the offensive grinds to a halt due to winter weather the fact that the Ukrainians can just pick off targets like that must be pretty bad news for the Russians in occupied Ukraine. And this is before the US-supplied ATACMS arrive.
Now, it could be the case that his petition wasn't "don't do HS2" but was "make this change to the way it affects my constituency". Many MPs have done that (like Angela Rayner, for example - who was very clear throughout that she DID support HS2 in principle.) But the tweet appeared to give the impression that he opposed it.
If I get ten minutes later I shall look up his petition.