For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80, I am increasingly of the view that handing government over to the oldies is not the worst thing we could do.
I'd rather have a nonagenerian Hezza running the show than any of the current lot in office, or opposition.
He's a bit Teflon. I don't think we missed out in any way in having him out of mainstream politics. I cannot think of a politician who has been placed so well and has delivered so little. The only contender is Brown.
I tend to disagree.
He did good work with Docklands, and in Liverpool. He was instrumental in persuading Thatcher to adopt the council house right to buy policy - and had he been listened to, we might have avoided its deeply malign effects on both local government finance, and our housing stock: "...At the time Heseltine permitted councils to use up to 75% of sales receipts for renovating the housing stock, and was angry in later years when this was cut back by the Treasury..."
He was also pretty effective at managing his departments - a skill which seems beyond most ministers these days.
In a government other than Thatcher's, with whom he was constantly at loggerheads, and who denied him senior cabinet posts, he might have achieved a great deal more.
Spoke a lot of sense, and eloquently with passion. A bit like Ken Clarke. Conservatives worth listening too, and voting for, now seen as lefties by todays Tory members.
The real problem is that our political and voting system forces ambitious young politicians who are really centrist to choose between Tory and Labour, so that they can have a national political career, within which they have to hide many of their true beliefs in order to further said career, and they can only speak out once they are powerless and it’s too late.
And at the same time directs various extremists, who really belong in fringe parties with handfuls of MPs, into the main parties where they lurk and await their chance to pull our politics out toward the fringes.
I doubt Heseltine or Clarke in particular ever saw themselves as centrists. They were and are conservatives with a small c, but intelligent enough to accept that there are times when the state is best placed to provide solutions too, rather than rely on a particular dogma always being correct.
They are pragmatists, but clear centre right pragmatists.
On most issues Heseltine and Clarke were closer to New Labour and the LDs than Thatcherite Conservatives, indeed on Iraq they were even left of Blair
That wasn’t a right/left question - it was a right/wrong one. And they were right.
Not necessarily, if Iraq was still under the rule of Saddam Hussein he would certainly be supplying Putin with arms now and Iraq still under a brutal regime
Saddam Hussein would be 86 years old by now, in a country where male life expectancy is 68. I think it's highly unlikely he'd still be alive, let alone in power!
Or even worse Uday
"For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80,"
The GOP campaign will focus on Harris - who as veep may very well become POTUS in two years or so if Biden wins.
I am increasingly of the view that this is shaping up to be a bloody disaster by pushing on with Joe.
As a mate said to me this afternoon over a cuppa - how is Biden going to handle the TV debates with Trump? He can't have a flash card for every possible quick fire question.
Now that Trump has come out as More Liberal on Abortion than most GOP candidates, I am genuinely unsure as to why he is such a threat
So he *might* defund Ukraine, or he might actually seek a peace that could work - saving 100,000s of lives. What is Biden doing apart from feeding a war machine which chews up people?
He might also pursue a very isolationist, America-first economic and trade - oops, Biden is doing that
What else? He might actually stop migrants illegally crossing the border? That is increasingly the cry of Democrats in NYC, DC, LA, etc
So what's left? What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it. Because he breaks constitutional norms? Dems have done this for a decade or more, disputing elections and warping the media (see: the ban on discussing Lab Leak until Trump was defeated)
Where Trump is concerned you are like Big_G with the Tories, desperate for the slightest excuse to give open support.
Why seek the excuse? You know you are a Trumpite at heart.
Or, you could answer the question
After all we have seen, what makes Trump so uniquely bad?
Pretending he won in 2020, when he actually lost by 7 million votes?
Biden 81 million Trump 74 million
What did Hillary do? Or Al Gore?
Disputing elections looks like a fine old Yankee tradition, to me
And Trump didn't tell social media to close down globally-important news stories
I don't remember either of them submitting slates of fake electors. But that's probably just my memory.
I'm trying to help you, and the generalised flailing midwits of PB
America is polling - at least in one instance - 51-42 for Trump over Biden. A massive lead for a man that PB regards as an obvious fraud, charlatan, villain and imbecile. Why is this happening?
You can either ignore me, then be thunderstruck when Trump wins, or you can hearken to me, as I talk through reasons why Trump might win, with the average American
I respect America and Americans, they are certainly not stupid - or no more stupid than any other society. Yet Americans are edging towards Trump. Why? Are they all just fat deluded idiots, or is something more nuanced going on?
Oh, it's entirely possible Trump is reelected.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Upset, yes. But not surprised.
My point is that by signing up fake electors and pressuring Pence to recognize them over the legitimate ones, Trump crossed a line.
The Jan 6 riots were not insurrection. But this was. This was an attempt to throw out the legitimate results of an election, which would - undoubtedly - have resulted in civil war in the US.
Comparing Trump's actions to Hillary's or Gore's is beyond insane. They groused. He committed an incredibly serious offence.
But there is literally ZERO analysis on PB of why Trump might easily win, even with intelligent and educated Americans. Honestly: none. Nil. Zipppppp. It is a pitiful failure
And don't ask me to do it, I get paid for my flints and my words. I suggest you, as an intelligent Brit resident in America, sit down and honestly think it through, then write
It would make a seriously interesting piece. But purge your preconceptions beforehand
But the responses were to the challenge you posed of: "What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it."
Can you see it now or are you still being as thick as shit?
I was a step head. Sorry. I should have said "as an average American voter, not some nunbskulled boring zero-insight middlebrow PB twat like @Benpointer@kamski etc etc"
MY BAD
Surely just easier and more honest to admit that you're a raving, alt-right, Trump-loving, Putin-worshipping lunatic? We all see it anyway.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
"The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted ..."
You've just typed that. Look at that. Maybe lay off the isopropyl alcohol and Tizer for a bit?
For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80, I am increasingly of the view that handing government over to the oldies is not the worst thing we could do.
I'd rather have a nonagenerian Hezza running the show than any of the current lot in office, or opposition.
He's a bit Teflon. I don't think we missed out in any way in having him out of mainstream politics. I cannot think of a politician who has been placed so well and has delivered so little. The only contender is Brown.
I tend to disagree.
He did good work with Docklands, and in Liverpool. He was instrumental in persuading Thatcher to adopt the council house right to buy policy - and had he been listened to, we might have avoided its deeply malign effects on both local government finance, and our housing stock: "...At the time Heseltine permitted councils to use up to 75% of sales receipts for renovating the housing stock, and was angry in later years when this was cut back by the Treasury..."
He was also pretty effective at managing his departments - a skill which seems beyond most ministers these days.
In a government other than Thatcher's, with whom he was constantly at loggerheads, and who denied him senior cabinet posts, he might have achieved a great deal more.
Spoke a lot of sense, and eloquently with passion. A bit like Ken Clarke. Conservatives worth listening too, and voting for, now seen as lefties by todays Tory members.
The real problem is that our political and voting system forces ambitious young politicians who are really centrist to choose between Tory and Labour, so that they can have a national political career, within which they have to hide many of their true beliefs in order to further said career, and they can only speak out once they are powerless and it’s too late.
And at the same time directs various extremists, who really belong in fringe parties with handfuls of MPs, into the main parties where they lurk and await their chance to pull our politics out toward the fringes.
I doubt Heseltine or Clarke in particular ever saw themselves as centrists. They were and are conservatives with a small c, but intelligent enough to accept that there are times when the state is best placed to provide solutions too, rather than rely on a particular dogma always being correct.
They are pragmatists, but clear centre right pragmatists.
On most issues Heseltine and Clarke were closer to New Labour and the LDs than Thatcherite Conservatives, indeed on Iraq they were even left of Blair
That wasn’t a right/left question - it was a right/wrong one. And they were right.
Not necessarily, if Iraq was still under the rule of Saddam Hussein he would certainly be supplying Putin with arms now and Iraq still under a brutal regime
Saddam Hussein would be 86 years old by now, in a country where male life expectancy is 68. I think it's highly unlikely he'd still be alive, let alone in power!
Or even worse Uday
"For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80,"
The GOP campaign will focus on Harris - who as veep may very well become POTUS in two years or so if Biden wins.
I am increasingly of the view that this is shaping up to be a bloody disaster by pushing on with Joe.
As a mate said to me this afternoon over a cuppa - how is Biden going to handle the TV debates with Trump? He can't have a flash card for every possible quick fire question.
Now that Trump has come out as More Liberal on Abortion than most GOP candidates, I am genuinely unsure as to why he is such a threat
So he *might* defund Ukraine, or he might actually seek a peace that could work - saving 100,000s of lives. What is Biden doing apart from feeding a war machine which chews up people?
He might also pursue a very isolationist, America-first economic and trade - oops, Biden is doing that
What else? He might actually stop migrants illegally crossing the border? That is increasingly the cry of Democrats in NYC, DC, LA, etc
So what's left? What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it. Because he breaks constitutional norms? Dems have done this for a decade or more, disputing elections and warping the media (see: the ban on discussing Lab Leak until Trump was defeated)
Where Trump is concerned you are like Big_G with the Tories, desperate for the slightest excuse to give open support.
Why seek the excuse? You know you are a Trumpite at heart.
Or, you could answer the question
After all we have seen, what makes Trump so uniquely bad?
Pretending he won in 2020, when he actually lost by 7 million votes?
Biden 81 million Trump 74 million
What did Hillary do? Or Al Gore?
Disputing elections looks like a fine old Yankee tradition, to me
And Trump didn't tell social media to close down globally-important news stories
I don't remember either of them submitting slates of fake electors. But that's probably just my memory.
I'm trying to help you, and the generalised flailing midwits of PB
America is polling - at least in one instance - 51-42 for Trump over Biden. A massive lead for a man that PB regards as an obvious fraud, charlatan, villain and imbecile. Why is this happening?
You can either ignore me, then be thunderstruck when Trump wins, or you can hearken to me, as I talk through reasons why Trump might win, with the average American
I respect America and Americans, they are certainly not stupid - or no more stupid than any other society. Yet Americans are edging towards Trump. Why? Are they all just fat deluded idiots, or is something more nuanced going on?
No, you implied that Gore and Clinton did the same as Trump. This is because you are an idiot.
I mean, you know, God bless, you must be struggling with German food, but this does not constitute an "argument", it's just pathetic sixth form wankiness
Why is Trump seen as a superior alternative by 50%+ of Americans, many of them highly educated who can see all his flaws? Generally much better than us?
I know it's over your intellectual pay-grade, and it will be hard, but have a bash
More immediately, why is the Republican party currently going 90 percent or so for Trump?
For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80, I am increasingly of the view that handing government over to the oldies is not the worst thing we could do.
I'd rather have a nonagenerian Hezza running the show than any of the current lot in office, or opposition.
He's a bit Teflon. I don't think we missed out in any way in having him out of mainstream politics. I cannot think of a politician who has been placed so well and has delivered so little. The only contender is Brown.
I tend to disagree.
He did good work with Docklands, and in Liverpool. He was instrumental in persuading Thatcher to adopt the council house right to buy policy - and had he been listened to, we might have avoided its deeply malign effects on both local government finance, and our housing stock: "...At the time Heseltine permitted councils to use up to 75% of sales receipts for renovating the housing stock, and was angry in later years when this was cut back by the Treasury..."
He was also pretty effective at managing his departments - a skill which seems beyond most ministers these days.
In a government other than Thatcher's, with whom he was constantly at loggerheads, and who denied him senior cabinet posts, he might have achieved a great deal more.
Spoke a lot of sense, and eloquently with passion. A bit like Ken Clarke. Conservatives worth listening too, and voting for, now seen as lefties by todays Tory members.
The real problem is that our political and voting system forces ambitious young politicians who are really centrist to choose between Tory and Labour, so that they can have a national political career, within which they have to hide many of their true beliefs in order to further said career, and they can only speak out once they are powerless and it’s too late.
And at the same time directs various extremists, who really belong in fringe parties with handfuls of MPs, into the main parties where they lurk and await their chance to pull our politics out toward the fringes.
I doubt Heseltine or Clarke in particular ever saw themselves as centrists. They were and are conservatives with a small c, but intelligent enough to accept that there are times when the state is best placed to provide solutions too, rather than rely on a particular dogma always being correct.
They are pragmatists, but clear centre right pragmatists.
On most issues Heseltine and Clarke were closer to New Labour and the LDs than Thatcherite Conservatives, indeed on Iraq they were even left of Blair
That wasn’t a right/left question - it was a right/wrong one. And they were right.
Not necessarily, if Iraq was still under the rule of Saddam Hussein he would certainly be supplying Putin with arms now and Iraq still under a brutal regime
Saddam Hussein would be 86 years old by now, in a country where male life expectancy is 68. I think it's highly unlikely he'd still be alive, let alone in power!
Or even worse Uday
"For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80,"
The GOP campaign will focus on Harris - who as veep may very well become POTUS in two years or so if Biden wins.
I am increasingly of the view that this is shaping up to be a bloody disaster by pushing on with Joe.
As a mate said to me this afternoon over a cuppa - how is Biden going to handle the TV debates with Trump? He can't have a flash card for every possible quick fire question.
Now that Trump has come out as More Liberal on Abortion than most GOP candidates, I am genuinely unsure as to why he is such a threat
So he *might* defund Ukraine, or he might actually seek a peace that could work - saving 100,000s of lives. What is Biden doing apart from feeding a war machine which chews up people?
He might also pursue a very isolationist, America-first economic and trade - oops, Biden is doing that
What else? He might actually stop migrants illegally crossing the border? That is increasingly the cry of Democrats in NYC, DC, LA, etc
So what's left? What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it. Because he breaks constitutional norms? Dems have done this for a decade or more, disputing elections and warping the media (see: the ban on discussing Lab Leak until Trump was defeated)
Where Trump is concerned you are like Big_G with the Tories, desperate for the slightest excuse to give open support.
Why seek the excuse? You know you are a Trumpite at heart.
Or, you could answer the question
After all we have seen, what makes Trump so uniquely bad?
Pretending he won in 2020, when he actually lost by 7 million votes?
Biden 81 million Trump 74 million
What did Hillary do? Or Al Gore?
Disputing elections looks like a fine old Yankee tradition, to me
And Trump didn't tell social media to close down globally-important news stories
I don't remember either of them submitting slates of fake electors. But that's probably just my memory.
I'm trying to help you, and the generalised flailing midwits of PB
America is polling - at least in one instance - 51-42 for Trump over Biden. A massive lead for a man that PB regards as an obvious fraud, charlatan, villain and imbecile. Why is this happening?
You can either ignore me, then be thunderstruck when Trump wins, or you can hearken to me, as I talk through reasons why Trump might win, with the average American
I respect America and Americans, they are certainly not stupid - or no more stupid than any other society. Yet Americans are edging towards Trump. Why? Are they all just fat deluded idiots, or is something more nuanced going on?
No, you implied that Gore and Clinton did the same as Trump. This is because you are an idiot.
I mean, you know, God bless, you must be struggling with German food, but this does not constitute an "argument", it's just pathetic sixth form wankiness
Why is Trump seen as a superior alternative by 50%+ of Americans, many of them highly educated who can see all his flaws? Generally much better than us?
I know it's over your intellectual pay-grade, and it will be hard, but have a bash
The question I was attempting to answer is: why do you say that Al Gore trying to get a recount in Florida is the same as all the shit Trump tried to pull to overturn his election loss?
Even an excitable toddler like you must, on reflection, realise that they are not even remotely similar.
Successful organisations are ones that prioritise process over outcomes.
The US has civics lessons to try and hammer that point in: this is the process, and sometimes we win, and sometimes we don't, but we have process for a reason.
Problems occur when we say "fuck process, I care more about the outcome of my guy being in charge".
It might very well be that Trump is a better manager of the US economy that Biden. That is certainly what lots of Americans think.
But I'd rather have a fucked up outcome (say a Corbyn government implementing dumb policies) than throw away democracy and the rule of law to prevent it.
Too many Americans don't realise how precious and fragile their democracy is.
And once democracy has gone, it is really hard to get it back.
Similar to when Remainers say "who cares about sovereignty and Parliament setting our laws, what benefits does Brexit bring?"
Having a democratically elected sovereign Parliament setting our laws is the most precious and fragile thing we have.
Relatedly:
"What the Capitol riots and the plot to stop Brexit have in common"
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Is there such a thing as a "qualification" for a barrister? I thought it consisted of eating a set number of dinners in the Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, etc. etc.
Yes - believe it or not you need to study law. I did it in one year followed by a year at the Inns of Court School of Law to learn advocacy, civil and criminal procedure etc and you eat the various dinners at the Inn you join. Then pupillage - another year or so - before finally getting a seat in chambers.
Braverman is a barrister - a piss poor one. She exaggerated her CV and her one outing in court as A-G was eviscerated by the judges before whom she appeared.
Prentis, the A-G on whose legal expertise poor @HYUFD places so much reliance, qualified as a barrister in 1995 then joined the civil service in 1997 and left 7 years later. Her last job was a jobshare in the Treasury Solicitors Department. Her experience and knowledge as a lawyer are vastly less than mine or many of the other lawyers on here, frankly. If she thought that the Times was in breach of the contempt of court laws over what it has written about Mr Brand she would be taking legal action under the laws. She won't because she'd be laughed out of court. It's the power play of a bully and the papers' response to it should be the well known Arkell v Pressdram one.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
So you're unable to read as well as unable to listen? The legislation is entirely clear on when proceedings are active.
Further, it is simply untrue that the AG has the final say on how legislation is interpreted. The courts do.
You are, I'm afraid, completely ignorant on legal matters.
A lot of Republican voters want to turn the US into Gilead, but they are a firm minority of the population. They vote for Trump because he's Cyrus/King David, a pagan who can advance their aims.
A big element of Trump's support comes from people who are not religious, or at least only nominally religious. Someone like Lauren Boebert is a perfect example. They believe firmly in gun rights, loathe the political establishment, (in some cases) hate Blacks, but also encompass quite large minorities of Black and Hispanic male voters, who detest a lot of the social changes that have taken place over the past 30 years.
Trump is basically the Randall Flagg of US politics, on whom any number of people who might not be much in agreement with each other, can project their resentments and anger.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The same Mr Shanks praising SNP policies and attacking Labour policies? I wonder how that'll work out.
Well unless SLAB's canvassing data is massively off, it looks like he'll be in Parliament after conference season has ended. East Kilbride will be a much tougher test mind, if that by-election happens.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Is there such a thing as a "qualification" for a barrister? I thought it consisted of eating a set number of dinners in the Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, etc. etc.
Yes - believe it or not you need to study law. I did it in one year followed by a year at the Inns of Court School of Law to learn advocacy, civil and criminal procedure etc and you eat the various dinners at the Inn you join. Then pupillage - another year or so - before finally getting a seat in chambers.
Braverman is a barrister - a piss poor one. She exaggerated her CV and her one outing in court as A-G was eviscerated by the judges before whom she appeared.
Prentis, the A-G on whose legal expertise poor @HYUFD places so much reliance, qualified as a barrister in 1995 then joined the civil service in 1997 and left 7 years later. Her last job was a jobshare in the Treasury Solicitors Department. Her experience and knowledge as a lawyer are vastly less than mine or many of the other lawyers on here, frankly. If she thought that the Times was in breach of the contempt of court laws over what it has written about Mr Brand she would be taking legal action under the laws. She won't because she'd be laughed out of court. It's the power play of a bully and the papers' response to it should be the well known Arkell v Pressdram one.
The same Mr Shanks praising SNP policies and attacking Labour policies? I wonder how that'll work out.
Well unless SLAB's canvassing data is massively off, it looks like he'll be in Parliament after conference season has ended. East Kilbride will be a much tougher test mind, if that by-election happens.
Quite so. I do wonder however if he will continue to criticise the 2-child policy, etc. etc.
Edit: could be interesting if he does. David Canavan is much missed.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
That's sophistry. Judges rule on how statute is interpreted. Parliament can change statute to say something else.
In Scotland problems also accumulate in the Criminal Justice System. GeoAmay are supposed to provide transportation for those who are in custody to get them to court and also to provide security for those appearing in the court. The current situation is disastrous. The Sheriff Principals have now provided that courts must finish dealing with custodies by 7pm on a Monday and 6pm every other night unless the accused, the summons and a representative are all present before that cut off in which case the court can be dealt with.
Everyone is extremely unhappy with GeoAmay but the reality is that no one else seems to want the contract which they probably under bid for and carries huge amounts of unpaid responsibility and PR risk.
What this utter shambles suggests to me is that it just might not be the case that the utter chaos south of the border is entirely the fault of incompetent ministers or even corrupt and self serving police officers. We need to look much more realistically at what we do and why we do it.
We have gone from a situation which positively encouraged the hiding of contrary evidence to a point where the disclosure provisions require hundreds of pages for relatively simple crimes which need to be read, discussed with the accused and just might form the basis of some contrived defence. I think that we have gone too far. We seem to increase the length of served sentences to reflect public anger without regard to the consequences for our prison service or those who work in it. We lock up more than anyone else in Europe: is it working? We have lots of prosecutions of single complainer rapes which allegedly occurred within a relationship in the knowledge that the conviction rate for such charges is pitiful. Why do we do this? Who does it help?
The infantile way our politics and our media discuss these things make sensible discussions almost impossible. The police are indeed blameworthy but they operate in a system that just doesn't work for anyone, the victims, the accused, the participants and the public. No one is getting what they want out of this.
Thanks for posting this @DavidL . I think the problem with this is that most questions of crime and punishment invoke a reaction of disgust which is amplified by social media and against which it is impossible to provide a compelling counter narrative. People try, admirably - even the occasional politician - but it never really works. What the people seem to want is a massive jail population in third world style conditions, perhaps self funded by some form of slave labour amongst prisoners. We seem to move further towards this with every new policy announcement on the subject of criminal justice, today being no exception.
Yes, and apart from a tiny handful of exceptions like Letby those who are sent to prison will come out again and form a part of our society. The consequences of jail include the loss of employment, the loss of housing, loss of contact with family members, the creation of a new friendship group of those also serving sentences, all too often new problems with addiction and mental health. None of these factors make reoffending less likely. None.
Rory made a test of his time as Prison minister was whether he could find ways to reduce recidivism. He was, as usual, spot on. Education, support on departure, restorative justice, community justice initiatives, this is where we need to go. But sounding tough is so much easier.
I think there's two side to this. On the one hand I agree that we should be trying to get people who go to prison to come out the other side in a state where they are useful members of society, rather than going straight back into crime.
On the other hand, my local area, like most, has a colourful array of scrotes dealing drugs, committing burglaries, nicking stuff from cars, shoplifting etc. They periodically do time - a month or two, then out they come again for another dose of crime. Usually it's a fairly small number of scrotes who conspire make an area miserable.
My business, not long before I bought the previous owners out, was done over - the back door to a workshop got smashed in and about £30k in engineering tools and equipment disappeared one night. We found some of it for sale on Facebook marketplace - we eventually persuaded the Plod (who were very uninterested) to go and nick the vendor, of whom they were well aware - he turned out to have a record a mile long for things like handling stolen goods.
I'm afraid I'm of the view that someone like that is pretty much un-curable, and at some point, instead of namby-pambying about with repeated sentences of 3 months plus a bit of community service we need to start dishing out more like 25 years.
Essentially, I think we should have two tracks - first(ish) offenders - lots of effort to get them reformed and back into the community in a useful capacity. Serial repeat offenders - dump them as cheaply as possible where they can't do society any more harm, and more or less throw away the key.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
That's sophistry. Judges rule on how statute is interpreted. Parliament can change statute to say something else.
Or on another reading Parliament can clarify statute so its original intention is clearer if judges have misread it
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron.
On one judiicial intepretation which the government can then overrule by updates to statute
For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80, I am increasingly of the view that handing government over to the oldies is not the worst thing we could do.
I'd rather have a nonagenerian Hezza running the show than any of the current lot in office, or opposition.
He's a bit Teflon. I don't think we missed out in any way in having him out of mainstream politics. I cannot think of a politician who has been placed so well and has delivered so little. The only contender is Brown.
I tend to disagree.
He did good work with Docklands, and in Liverpool. He was instrumental in persuading Thatcher to adopt the council house right to buy policy - and had he been listened to, we might have avoided its deeply malign effects on both local government finance, and our housing stock: "...At the time Heseltine permitted councils to use up to 75% of sales receipts for renovating the housing stock, and was angry in later years when this was cut back by the Treasury..."
He was also pretty effective at managing his departments - a skill which seems beyond most ministers these days.
In a government other than Thatcher's, with whom he was constantly at loggerheads, and who denied him senior cabinet posts, he might have achieved a great deal more.
Spoke a lot of sense, and eloquently with passion. A bit like Ken Clarke. Conservatives worth listening too, and voting for, now seen as lefties by todays Tory members.
The real problem is that our political and voting system forces ambitious young politicians who are really centrist to choose between Tory and Labour, so that they can have a national political career, within which they have to hide many of their true beliefs in order to further said career, and they can only speak out once they are powerless and it’s too late.
And at the same time directs various extremists, who really belong in fringe parties with handfuls of MPs, into the main parties where they lurk and await their chance to pull our politics out toward the fringes.
I doubt Heseltine or Clarke in particular ever saw themselves as centrists. They were and are conservatives with a small c, but intelligent enough to accept that there are times when the state is best placed to provide solutions too, rather than rely on a particular dogma always being correct.
They are pragmatists, but clear centre right pragmatists.
On most issues Heseltine and Clarke were closer to New Labour and the LDs than Thatcherite Conservatives, indeed on Iraq they were even left of Blair
That wasn’t a right/left question - it was a right/wrong one. And they were right.
Not necessarily, if Iraq was still under the rule of Saddam Hussein he would certainly be supplying Putin with arms now and Iraq still under a brutal regime
Saddam Hussein would be 86 years old by now, in a country where male life expectancy is 68. I think it's highly unlikely he'd still be alive, let alone in power!
Or even worse Uday
"For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80,"
The GOP campaign will focus on Harris - who as veep may very well become POTUS in two years or so if Biden wins.
I am increasingly of the view that this is shaping up to be a bloody disaster by pushing on with Joe.
As a mate said to me this afternoon over a cuppa - how is Biden going to handle the TV debates with Trump? He can't have a flash card for every possible quick fire question.
Now that Trump has come out as More Liberal on Abortion than most GOP candidates, I am genuinely unsure as to why he is such a threat
So he *might* defund Ukraine, or he might actually seek a peace that could work - saving 100,000s of lives. What is Biden doing apart from feeding a war machine which chews up people?
He might also pursue a very isolationist, America-first economic and trade - oops, Biden is doing that
What else? He might actually stop migrants illegally crossing the border? That is increasingly the cry of Democrats in NYC, DC, LA, etc
So what's left? What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it. Because he breaks constitutional norms? Dems have done this for a decade or more, disputing elections and warping the media (see: the ban on discussing Lab Leak until Trump was defeated)
Where Trump is concerned you are like Big_G with the Tories, desperate for the slightest excuse to give open support.
Why seek the excuse? You know you are a Trumpite at heart.
Or, you could answer the question
After all we have seen, what makes Trump so uniquely bad?
Pretending he won in 2020, when he actually lost by 7 million votes?
Biden 81 million Trump 74 million
What did Hillary do? Or Al Gore?
Disputing elections looks like a fine old Yankee tradition, to me
And Trump didn't tell social media to close down globally-important news stories
I don't remember either of them submitting slates of fake electors. But that's probably just my memory.
I'm trying to help you, and the generalised flailing midwits of PB
America is polling - at least in one instance - 51-42 for Trump over Biden. A massive lead for a man that PB regards as an obvious fraud, charlatan, villain and imbecile. Why is this happening?
You can either ignore me, then be thunderstruck when Trump wins, or you can hearken to me, as I talk through reasons why Trump might win, with the average American
I respect America and Americans, they are certainly not stupid - or no more stupid than any other society. Yet Americans are edging towards Trump. Why? Are they all just fat deluded idiots, or is something more nuanced going on?
Oh, it's entirely possible Trump is reelected.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Upset, yes. But not surprised.
My point is that by signing up fake electors and pressuring Pence to recognize them over the legitimate ones, Trump crossed a line.
The Jan 6 riots were not insurrection. But this was. This was an attempt to throw out the legitimate results of an election, which would - undoubtedly - have resulted in civil war in the US.
Comparing Trump's actions to Hillary's or Gore's is beyond insane. They groused. He committed an incredibly serious offence.
But there is literally ZERO analysis on PB of why Trump might easily win, even with intelligent and educated Americans. Honestly: none. Nil. Zipppppp. It is a pitiful failure
And don't ask me to do it, I get paid for my flints and my words. I suggest you, as an intelligent Brit resident in America, sit down and honestly think it through, then write
It would make a seriously interesting piece. But purge your preconceptions beforehand
But the responses were to the challenge you posed of: "What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it."
Can you see it now or are you still being as thick as shit?
I was a step head. Sorry. I should have said "as an average American voter, not some nunbskulled boring zero-insight middlebrow PB twat like @Benpointer@kamski etc etc"
MY BAD
OK got it. I should always remember to add in the missing "a Trump fan might think" that you forget to type at the start of all your posts.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
That's sophistry. Judges rule on how statute is interpreted. Parliament can change statute to say something else.
Or on another reading Parliament can clarify statute so its original intention is clearer if judges have misread it
In other news, black is white because they both look the same when all the lights are out.
No - the A-G does not speak for the government on how the law is interpreted. The A-G is the legal advisor to the government.
This is what the A-G's Department itself says -
"The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) provides legal advice and support to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General (the Law Officers) who give legal advice to government. The AGO helps the Law Officers perform other duties in the public interest, such as looking at sentences which may be too low."
I am pretty certain they have Google in Epping. You might like to try it sometime.
The A-G performs the same role in government as the General Counsel does in a corporation or a solicitor does vis a vis their client: an advisor on the law and someone who sometimes appears before the courts - or instructs others to do so - on the client's behalf.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron...
... and a typical representative of the membership of the Conservative Party, let us not forget.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron.
On one judiicial intepretation which the government can then overrule by updates to statute
So you're saying the reporting isn't currently against the law but if the media doesn't stop the government will try to pass a law to make their reporting illegal?
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
Judges frequently overrule governments on how statute is interpreted. That is what the rule of law means.
The Attorney-General’s opinion is only an opinion.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
That's sophistry. Judges rule on how statute is interpreted. Parliament can change statute to say something else.
Or on another reading Parliament can clarify statute so its original intention is clearer if judges have misread it
HYUFD, you can annoy people with your blanket refusal to concede an error, but you seem like a nice person. Tonight the PB forum is being despoiled by another poster, a racist conspiracy theorist troll, so I think it's time to say good night.
I must say that watching @HYUFD doggedly make a complete fool of himself is most enjoyable. One can see why La Braverman will be a shoe-in for next Tory leader if he is at all representative of the electorate.
But I must leave the eminent @SirNorfolkPassmore to fight the good fight. Other enjoyments await. Night all.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron.
On one judiicial intepretation which the government can then overrule by updates to statute
There is no sense in which the AG was talking about retrospective legislation, or that she would have any chance whatsoever of enacting it in relation to contempt even if she was.
The use of it is limited to things like Nazi war crimes where offences may not have technically been clear but the conduct was clearly wrong. It's ludicrous, and indescribably thick, to think it is in any way relevant.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
Judges frequently overrule governments on how statute is interpreted. That is what the rule of law means.
The Attorney-General’s opinion is only an opinion.
The rule of law in the UK is ultimately that Crown in Parliament, not judges, is sovereign
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Is there such a thing as a "qualification" for a barrister? I thought it consisted of eating a set number of dinners in the Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, etc. etc.
Yes - believe it or not you need to study law. I did it in one year followed by a year at the Inns of Court School of Law to learn advocacy, civil and criminal procedure etc and you eat the various dinners at the Inn you join. Then pupillage - another year or so - before finally getting a seat in chambers.
Braverman is a barrister - a piss poor one. She exaggerated her CV and her one outing in court as A-G was eviscerated by the judges before whom she appeared.
Prentis, the A-G on whose legal expertise poor @HYUFD places so much reliance, qualified as a barrister in 1995 then joined the civil service in 1997 and left 7 years later. Her last job was a jobshare in the Treasury Solicitors Department. Her experience and knowledge as a lawyer are vastly less than mine or many of the other lawyers on here, frankly. If she thought that the Times was in breach of the contempt of court laws over what it has written about Mr Brand she would be taking legal action under the laws. She won't because she'd be laughed out of court. It's the power play of a bully and the papers' response to it should be the well known Arkell v Pressdram one.
Speaking of the devil, we've got a Suella speech to look forward to, trailed in all the usual places;
Braverman: 780 million ‘refugees’ shows rules must change
Braverman continues her beatification by the right wing media who seem to revel in the thought she could one day lead the Tory party or even worse become PM .
Sunak knows that she will be happy to stick the knife in and depart at a suitable time where she can play the martyr and further ingratiate herself to the Tory membership .
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron.
On one judiicial intepretation which the government can then overrule by updates to statute
So you're saying the reporting isn't currently against the law but if the media doesn't stop the government will try to pass a law to make their reporting illegal?
If it compromises the police investigation and evidence that emerges from that and any subsequent court case and criminal proceedings then yes it could be against the law
I must say that watching @HYUFD doggedly make a complete fool of himself is most enjoyable. One can see why La Braverman will be a shoe-in for next Tory leader if he is at all representative of the electorate.
But I must leave the eminent @SirNorfolkPassmore to fight the good fight. Other enjoyments await. Night all.
You can dream of which next public figure you can support trial by media for
A lot of Republican voters want to turn the US into Gilead, but they are a firm minority of the population. They vote for Trump because he's Cyrus/King David, a pagan who can advance their aims.
A big element of Trump's support comes from people who are not religious, or at least only nominally religious. Someone like Lauren Boebert is a perfect example. They believe firmly in gun rights, loathe the political establishment, (in some cases) hate Blacks, but also encompass quite large minorities of Black and Hispanic male voters, who detest a lot of the social changes that have taken place over the past 30 years.
Trump is basically the Randall Flagg of US politics, on whom any number of people who might not be much in agreement with each other, can project their resentments and anger.
Is there one other element, which is that if you are American, isolationism is fairly rational. You live in a super power at peace with its neighbours and with limited import needs. Take the moral component away, and why not be isolationist? And isolationism helps unify a lot of the groups you mention.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron.
On one judiicial intepretation which the government can then overrule by updates to statute
So you're saying the reporting isn't currently against the law but if the media doesn't stop the government will try to pass a law to make their reporting illegal?
If it compromises the police investigation and evidence that emerges from that and any subsequent court case and criminal proceedings then yes it could be against the law
I have literally pointed to the legislation that proves you wrong in what the law is, and you've literally chosen not to read it.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
Judges frequently overrule governments on how statute is interpreted. That is what the rule of law means.
The Attorney-General’s opinion is only an opinion.
The rule of law in the UK is ultimately that Crown in Parliament, not judges, is sovereign
Think about that for a minute. Then reflect on the civil war and the first ideas of liberty and the rule of law.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
Judges frequently overrule governments on how statute is interpreted. That is what the rule of law means.
The Attorney-General’s opinion is only an opinion.
The rule of law in the UK is ultimately that Crown in Parliament, not judges, is sovereign
Sovereignty, and the rule of law, are separate issues.
Your view is that the opinion of the Government has the force of law. That is just not how it works.
A lot of Republican voters want to turn the US into Gilead, but they are a firm minority of the population. They vote for Trump because he's Cyrus/King David, a pagan who can advance their aims.
A big element of Trump's support comes from people who are not religious, or at least only nominally religious. Someone like Lauren Boebert is a perfect example. They believe firmly in gun rights, loathe the political establishment, (in some cases) hate Blacks, but also encompass quite large minorities of Black and Hispanic male voters, who detest a lot of the social changes that have taken place over the past 30 years.
Trump is basically the Randall Flagg of US politics, on whom any number of people who might not be much in agreement with each other, can project their resentments and anger.
Is there one other element, which is that if you are American, isolationism is fairly rational. You live in a super power at peace with its neighbours and with limited import needs. Take the moral component away, and why not be isolationist? And isolationism helps unify a lot of the groups you mention.
It's rational up to a point, but only if you think the US does not have overseas interests that need to be defended.
Isolationism is where the political horsehoe meets up.
Like Borg drones many Americans no longer have a functioning brain but are just part of a hive mind that feeds them constant reasons to be angry over everything and to scapegoat others .
A lot of Republican voters want to turn the US into Gilead, but they are a firm minority of the population. They vote for Trump because he's Cyrus/King David, a pagan who can advance their aims.
A big element of Trump's support comes from people who are not religious, or at least only nominally religious. Someone like Lauren Boebert is a perfect example. They believe firmly in gun rights, loathe the political establishment, (in some cases) hate Blacks, but also encompass quite large minorities of Black and Hispanic male voters, who detest a lot of the social changes that have taken place over the past 30 years.
Trump is basically the Randall Flagg of US politics, on whom any number of people who might not be much in agreement with each other, can project their resentments and anger.
Is there one other element, which is that if you are American, isolationism is fairly rational. You live in a super power at peace with its neighbours and with limited import needs. Take the moral component away, and why not be isolationist? And isolationism helps unify a lot of the groups you mention.
It's rational up to a point, but only if you think the US does not have overseas interests that need to be defended.
Isolationism is where the political horsehoe meets up.
Hyufd is completely wrong but he's got half a point. In effect there's sort of a de facto civil contempt law given how imo Draconian our libel laws are. Then there's always a point if/when a charge happens when a whole bunch of stuff that's already in the public domain has to never be mentioned again and everyone needs to pretend said information never existed. Megan Stammers today, gone tomorrow.
I see the Tory leadership election is well and truly under way.
The stain on humanity needs Sunak to lose to get the gig . She doesn’t become Tory leader if he wins the next GE. So I expect an exit not close enough to the election to be seen as traitorous but close enough that’s she’s not forgotten .
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted.
The Government is successfully challenged via the courts all the time.
You are a complete moron.
On one judiicial intepretation which the government can then overrule by updates to statute
So you're saying the reporting isn't currently against the law but if the media doesn't stop the government will try to pass a law to make their reporting illegal?
If it compromises the police investigation and evidence that emerges from that and any subsequent court case and criminal proceedings then yes it could be against the law
I have literally pointed to the legislation that proves you wrong in what the law is, and you've literally chosen not to read it.
'"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant.'
For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80, I am increasingly of the view that handing government over to the oldies is not the worst thing we could do.
I'd rather have a nonagenerian Hezza running the show than any of the current lot in office, or opposition.
He's a bit Teflon. I don't think we missed out in any way in having him out of mainstream politics. I cannot think of a politician who has been placed so well and has delivered so little. The only contender is Brown.
I tend to disagree.
He did good work with Docklands, and in Liverpool. He was instrumental in persuading Thatcher to adopt the council house right to buy policy - and had he been listened to, we might have avoided its deeply malign effects on both local government finance, and our housing stock: "...At the time Heseltine permitted councils to use up to 75% of sales receipts for renovating the housing stock, and was angry in later years when this was cut back by the Treasury..."
He was also pretty effective at managing his departments - a skill which seems beyond most ministers these days.
In a government other than Thatcher's, with whom he was constantly at loggerheads, and who denied him senior cabinet posts, he might have achieved a great deal more.
Spoke a lot of sense, and eloquently with passion. A bit like Ken Clarke. Conservatives worth listening too, and voting for, now seen as lefties by todays Tory members.
The real problem is that our political and voting system forces ambitious young politicians who are really centrist to choose between Tory and Labour, so that they can have a national political career, within which they have to hide many of their true beliefs in order to further said career, and they can only speak out once they are powerless and it’s too late.
And at the same time directs various extremists, who really belong in fringe parties with handfuls of MPs, into the main parties where they lurk and await their chance to pull our politics out toward the fringes.
I doubt Heseltine or Clarke in particular ever saw themselves as centrists. They were and are conservatives with a small c, but intelligent enough to accept that there are times when the state is best placed to provide solutions too, rather than rely on a particular dogma always being correct.
They are pragmatists, but clear centre right pragmatists.
On most issues Heseltine and Clarke were closer to New Labour and the LDs than Thatcherite Conservatives, indeed on Iraq they were even left of Blair
That wasn’t a right/left question - it was a right/wrong one. And they were right.
Not necessarily, if Iraq was still under the rule of Saddam Hussein he would certainly be supplying Putin with arms now and Iraq still under a brutal regime
Saddam Hussein would be 86 years old by now, in a country where male life expectancy is 68. I think it's highly unlikely he'd still be alive, let alone in power!
Or even worse Uday
"For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80,"
The GOP campaign will focus on Harris - who as veep may very well become POTUS in two years or so if Biden wins.
I am increasingly of the view that this is shaping up to be a bloody disaster by pushing on with Joe.
As a mate said to me this afternoon over a cuppa - how is Biden going to handle the TV debates with Trump? He can't have a flash card for every possible quick fire question.
Now that Trump has come out as More Liberal on Abortion than most GOP candidates, I am genuinely unsure as to why he is such a threat
So he *might* defund Ukraine, or he might actually seek a peace that could work - saving 100,000s of lives. What is Biden doing apart from feeding a war machine which chews up people?
He might also pursue a very isolationist, America-first economic and trade - oops, Biden is doing that
What else? He might actually stop migrants illegally crossing the border? That is increasingly the cry of Democrats in NYC, DC, LA, etc
So what's left? What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it. Because he breaks constitutional norms? Dems have done this for a decade or more, disputing elections and warping the media (see: the ban on discussing Lab Leak until Trump was defeated)
Where Trump is concerned you are like Big_G with the Tories, desperate for the slightest excuse to give open support.
Why seek the excuse? You know you are a Trumpite at heart.
Or, you could answer the question
After all we have seen, what makes Trump so uniquely bad?
Pretending he won in 2020, when he actually lost by 7 million votes?
Biden 81 million Trump 74 million
What did Hillary do? Or Al Gore?
Disputing elections looks like a fine old Yankee tradition, to me
And Trump didn't tell social media to close down globally-important news stories
What exactly was globally-important about Hunter Biden's penis?
"Cheap phones more important than Chinese security threats, say UK millennials and Gen Zs New research has found that half of those surveyed aged 18-34 prioritise affordability of everyday items"
For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80, I am increasingly of the view that handing government over to the oldies is not the worst thing we could do.
I'd rather have a nonagenerian Hezza running the show than any of the current lot in office, or opposition.
He's a bit Teflon. I don't think we missed out in any way in having him out of mainstream politics. I cannot think of a politician who has been placed so well and has delivered so little. The only contender is Brown.
I tend to disagree.
He did good work with Docklands, and in Liverpool. He was instrumental in persuading Thatcher to adopt the council house right to buy policy - and had he been listened to, we might have avoided its deeply malign effects on both local government finance, and our housing stock: "...At the time Heseltine permitted councils to use up to 75% of sales receipts for renovating the housing stock, and was angry in later years when this was cut back by the Treasury..."
He was also pretty effective at managing his departments - a skill which seems beyond most ministers these days.
In a government other than Thatcher's, with whom he was constantly at loggerheads, and who denied him senior cabinet posts, he might have achieved a great deal more.
Spoke a lot of sense, and eloquently with passion. A bit like Ken Clarke. Conservatives worth listening too, and voting for, now seen as lefties by todays Tory members.
The real problem is that our political and voting system forces ambitious young politicians who are really centrist to choose between Tory and Labour, so that they can have a national political career, within which they have to hide many of their true beliefs in order to further said career, and they can only speak out once they are powerless and it’s too late.
And at the same time directs various extremists, who really belong in fringe parties with handfuls of MPs, into the main parties where they lurk and await their chance to pull our politics out toward the fringes.
I doubt Heseltine or Clarke in particular ever saw themselves as centrists. They were and are conservatives with a small c, but intelligent enough to accept that there are times when the state is best placed to provide solutions too, rather than rely on a particular dogma always being correct.
They are pragmatists, but clear centre right pragmatists.
On most issues Heseltine and Clarke were closer to New Labour and the LDs than Thatcherite Conservatives, indeed on Iraq they were even left of Blair
That wasn’t a right/left question - it was a right/wrong one. And they were right.
Not necessarily, if Iraq was still under the rule of Saddam Hussein he would certainly be supplying Putin with arms now and Iraq still under a brutal regime
Saddam Hussein would be 86 years old by now, in a country where male life expectancy is 68. I think it's highly unlikely he'd still be alive, let alone in power!
Or even worse Uday
"For all the criticism of Joe Biden running for office at 80,"
The GOP campaign will focus on Harris - who as veep may very well become POTUS in two years or so if Biden wins.
I am increasingly of the view that this is shaping up to be a bloody disaster by pushing on with Joe.
As a mate said to me this afternoon over a cuppa - how is Biden going to handle the TV debates with Trump? He can't have a flash card for every possible quick fire question.
Now that Trump has come out as More Liberal on Abortion than most GOP candidates, I am genuinely unsure as to why he is such a threat
So he *might* defund Ukraine, or he might actually seek a peace that could work - saving 100,000s of lives. What is Biden doing apart from feeding a war machine which chews up people?
He might also pursue a very isolationist, America-first economic and trade - oops, Biden is doing that
What else? He might actually stop migrants illegally crossing the border? That is increasingly the cry of Democrats in NYC, DC, LA, etc
So what's left? What makes Trump so awful? I honestly can't see it. Because he breaks constitutional norms? Dems have done this for a decade or more, disputing elections and warping the media (see: the ban on discussing Lab Leak until Trump was defeated)
Where Trump is concerned you are like Big_G with the Tories, desperate for the slightest excuse to give open support.
Why seek the excuse? You know you are a Trumpite at heart.
Or, you could answer the question
After all we have seen, what makes Trump so uniquely bad?
Pretending he won in 2020, when he actually lost by 7 million votes?
Biden 81 million Trump 74 million
What did Hillary do? Or Al Gore?
Disputing elections looks like a fine old Yankee tradition, to me
And Trump didn't tell social media to close down globally-important news stories
What exactly was globally-important about Hunter Biden's penis?
Nothing . Those using false equivalence are just hiding behind that in an effort to downplay Trumps despicable behaviour over the last 7 years .
Hyufd is completely wrong but he's got half a point. In effect there's sort of a de facto civil contempt law given how imo Draconian our libel laws are. Then there's always a point if/when a charge happens when a whole bunch of stuff that's already in the public domain has to never be mentioned again and everyone needs to pretend said information never existed. Megan Stammers today, gone tomorrow.
Laws on contempt of court are a restriction on the right of free speech.
That's fine because it's a qualified rather than absolute right. But the restriction needs to be proportionate, and it is - it is set out in the legislation HYUFD has failed to read.
The law is clear - you can comment on matters that might at some point go to court as long as they are not "active", that being clearly defined. The courts can, and routinely do, manage the issue of ensuring juries set to one side things that may be put into the public domain prior to this period, but are not presented in evidence at trial.
Additionally, an individual is protected by the civil law of libel. But that is law that protects their reputation - the law protecting their right to a fair trial is separate.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
I see HYUFD can’t read, so I’ll repost this bit. … The Attorney-General issues a warning to the press about the reporting around Brand’s sex life. There have been no arrests, no interviews, no charges – no live investigation – just one report of a complaint in the UK. The contempt of court laws do not apply – unlike in the Kaba case. Criminal prosecutions and investigative reporting are different and necessary functions and subject to different legal regimes. The Attorney-General has no business – and no legal authority – to warn off newspapers reporting on matters in circumstances when the contempt of court laws do not apply. If she is so concerned about these laws, she would be better off speaking to the Home Secretary. Like many other aspects of the government’s actions these days, it is reactive, designed to be populist while lacking in thought or principle...
There have been media reports of multiple complaints and in depth accusations made against Brand before any charges are made.
I am no great fan of Brand but that arguably is contempt of court if it prejudices a subsequent trial if charges are made when the police investigation should be left to deal with it without excess media interference
No it isn't. The media are not interfering. They are doing their job. A pity politicians cannot do theirs.
Their job is not to provide masses of media coverage of a matter which is currently under police investigation and where no charges have even yet been made.
We have the rule of law not trial by media
The bit in bold is the bit you need to focus on.
Your mistaken view would result in no need for any journalism at all because of the vague possibility that a charge might occur sometime in the future. We may as well just get handed our free copy of the latest Conservative Party press release every morning.
I could try and educate you on the law and press freedom but what would be the point? It'd be like trying to educate the speaking clock.
Clearly you do support trial by media then, rather than leaving investigations to the police and CPS and media coverage to any subsequent court case. Which is how a nation based on rule of law should work
You have it backwards. The press stops reporting (more-or-less) when someone (Brand in this case) is arrested and charged, after which it becomes sub judice. Before this and after acquittal or conviction, the press is free to print what it likes, constrained only by its readers' tastes and the law of libel.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
I see HYUFD can’t read, so I’ll repost this bit. … The Attorney-General issues a warning to the press about the reporting around Brand’s sex life. There have been no arrests, no interviews, no charges – no live investigation – just one report of a complaint in the UK. The contempt of court laws do not apply – unlike in the Kaba case. Criminal prosecutions and investigative reporting are different and necessary functions and subject to different legal regimes. The Attorney-General has no business – and no legal authority – to warn off newspapers reporting on matters in circumstances when the contempt of court laws do not apply. If she is so concerned about these laws, she would be better off speaking to the Home Secretary. Like many other aspects of the government’s actions these days, it is reactive, designed to be populist while lacking in thought or principle...
There have been media reports of multiple complaints and in depth accusations made against Brand before any charges are made.
I am no great fan of Brand but that arguably is contempt of court if it prejudices a subsequent trial if charges are made when the police investigation should be left to deal with it without excess media interference
No it isn't. The media are not interfering. They are doing their job. A pity politicians cannot do theirs.
Their job is not to provide masses of media coverage of a matter which is currently under police investigation and where no charges have even yet been made.
We have the rule of law not trial by media
The bit in bold is the bit you need to focus on.
Your mistaken view would result in no need for any journalism at all because of the vague possibility that a charge might occur sometime in the future. We may as well just get handed our free copy of the latest Conservative Party press release every morning.
I could try and educate you on the law and press freedom but what would be the point? It'd be like trying to educate the speaking clock.
Clearly you do support trial by media then, rather than leaving investigations to the police and CPS and media coverage to any subsequent court case. Which is how a nation based on rule of law should work
You have it backwards. The press stops reporting (more-or-less) when someone (Brand in this case) is arrested and charged, after which it becomes sub judice. Before this and after acquittal or conviction, the press is free to print what it likes, constrained only by its readers' tastes and the law of libel.
I wonder what Raab's take on this would be if he were still around. I suspect he may lament that newspapers are trying to report on events from the past.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
Lol, first it was pogroms, now it’s highland clearances. There’s only the Holocaust left for these melodramatic twats.
But it requires someone letting a property short term to have carbon monoxide alarms! Can't you see how this is suffocating small businesses?
I'm letting my flat out to a friend at the moment and the registration, safety tests etc all seemed proportionate given I'm responsible for providing them with a safe place to live in exchange for them paying my mortgage off.
I'd have thought those tests and registration would be even more important for short term lets, with no real relationship between the landlord and those staying there.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
Looks like the sort of seat that will probably swing Lib-Dem with a lot of Lab>Lib tactical voting.
Maybe 2029 he'll get a seat...
James Cracknell strikes me as quite a Lib-Dem-voter-friendly type of candidate.
Maybe, but it's Lab voters tactically voting Lib to keep the "Tory" out that will probably do for him...
Colchester is like Portsmouth South. Used to be Lib Dem, went Tory, and then much of the old Lib Dem vote switched to Labour. It will go red next year IMHO.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
Lol, first it was pogroms, now it’s highland clearances. There’s only the Holocaust left for these melodramatic twats.
But it requires someone letting a property short term to have carbon monoxide alarms! Can't you see how this is suffocating small businesses?
I'm letting my flat out to a friend at the moment and the registration, safety tests etc all seemed proportionate given I'm responsible for providing them with a safe place to live in exchange for them paying my mortgage off.
I'd have thought those tests and registration would be even more important for short term lets, with no real relationship between the landlord and those staying there.
Curiously, @BartholomewRoberts was against these regulations, despite the fact it will turf out rogue landlords and open up more flats for long-term lets and first time buyers, taking at least some of the heat out of the Edinburgh housing market.
Sam Freedman @Samfr I would say it's amazing that Suella Braverman so obviously wants to be PM given how out of her depth she is but then we just had Liz Truss.
Sam Freedman @Samfr I would say it's amazing that Suella Braverman so obviously wants to be PM given how out of her depth she is but then we just had Liz Truss.
The only chance Con would ditch Rishi before the election is if Boris was still in Parliament... But as Boris has gone, Rish is there until the end...
Sue-Ellen is jockeying for the contest to become LOTO after Election 24. But she's done for... If she'd been able to sort out the boats then maybe... but as it is she's just a pound shop Pretty Patel.
Next Con leader and LOTO is Kemi (as I tipped here last year)
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
Sam Freedman @Samfr I would say it's amazing that Suella Braverman so obviously wants to be PM given how out of her depth she is but then we just had Liz Truss.
The only chance Con would ditch Rishi before the election is if Boris was still in Parliament... But as Boris has gone Rish is there until the end...
Sue-Ellen is jockeying for the contest to become LOTO after Election 24. But she's done for... If she'd been able to sort out the boats then maybe... but as it is she's just a pound should Pretty Patel.
Next Con leader and LOTO is Kemi (as I tipped here last year)
Hmmm. Dunno. Think so much depends on whether an imminent election is feasible (i.e. minority, propped up, Labour Gvt). If so, I think Sunak hangs on. And from the numbers we are on post boundary changes, that’s far from impossible. So while I agree won’t your premise on her, I think she only has a 30% chance of being LOTO one year after the election.
Sam Freedman @Samfr I would say it's amazing that Suella Braverman so obviously wants to be PM given how out of her depth she is but then we just had Liz Truss.
The only chance Con would ditch Rishi before the election is if Boris was still in Parliament... But as Boris has gone, Rish is there until the end...
Sue-Ellen is jockeying for the contest to become LOTO after Election 24. But she's done for... If she'd been able to sort out the boats then maybe... but as it is she's just a pound shop Pretty Patel.
Next Con leader and LOTO is Kemi (as I tipped here last year)
Only if Tory MPs put her in the final two, otherwise it is more likely to be Barclay
Sam Freedman @Samfr I would say it's amazing that Suella Braverman so obviously wants to be PM given how out of her depth she is but then we just had Liz Truss.
The only chance Con would ditch Rishi before the election is if Boris was still in Parliament... But as Boris has gone, Rish is there until the end...
Sue-Ellen is jockeying for the contest to become LOTO after Election 24. But she's done for... If she'd been able to sort out the boats then maybe... but as it is she's just a pound shop Pretty Patel.
Next Con leader and LOTO is Kemi (as I tipped here last year)
Only if Tory MPs put her in the final two, otherwise it is more likely to be Barclay
Barclay?! Really?! He has fans beyond Mr/Mrs Barclay?
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
That's a sad tale. Hopefully there will be some last minute turn around.
I see James Cracknell has been chosen as a Conservative candidate for Colchester. With a double Olympic gold in rowing, if he wins he would surely become the most qualified MP for arguing in the House of Commons ever.
Looks like the sort of seat that will probably swing Lib-Dem with a lot of Lab>Lib tactical voting.
Maybe 2029 he'll get a seat...
James Cracknell strikes me as quite a Lib-Dem-voter-friendly type of candidate.
Maybe, but it's Lab voters tactically voting Lib to keep the "Tory" out that will probably do for him...
Colchester is like Portsmouth South. Used to be Lib Dem, went Tory, and then much of the old Lib Dem vote switched to Labour. It will go red next year IMHO.
Will be an interesting one as the Lib Dems have done well in the local elections in wards making up the Colchester constituency. Could be a three way split, and that is Cracknell's only chance - although they are the larget party on Colchester Council, their contingent is almost entirely made up of wards that are outside the constituency of Colchester, and the fact Will Quince is calling it a day at 40 is rather telling.
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
That's a sad tale. Hopefully there will be some last minute turn around.
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
Very sorry to hear this @isam. A lot of middle aged people do run into trouble at the gym... Of course exercise is good but for people in their 40s and 50s it's important to keep a close eye on blood pressure and cholesterol to make sure the heart/circulatory system is up to it the rigors its going to be put through...
But when symptoms started occurring he should certainly have looked for help though. Like you say, putting off getting medical help is something we all do (men especially)
Last year I was treated for cancer. I knew I was very likely to have the "C" as early as mid 2021 but I put of referring myself for months and months... Although in mitigation M'lud I was a carer for someone else and they themselves was terminally ill with metastatic breast cancer. So it was a very unusual situation to say the least...
When I finally referred myself to a specialist I was stage 2 and as far as I know I've now been successfully treated but I am VERY lucky to get away with this. It could very easily have been a very different outcome.
Anyway, I'm so sorry for you and your friend. Let us know what happens tomorrow.
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
Very sorry to hear this @isam. A lot of middle aged people do run into trouble at the gym... Of course exercise is good but for people in their 40s and 50s it's important to keep a close eye on blood pressure and cholesterol to make sure the heart/circulatory system is up to it the rigors its going to be put through...
But when symptoms started occurring he should certainly have looked for help though. Like you say, putting off getting medical help is something we all do (men especially)
Last year I was treated for cancer. I knew I was very likely to have the "C" as early as mid 2021 but I put of referring myself for months and months... Although in mitigation M'lud I was a carer for someone else and they themselves was terminally ill with metastatic breast cancer. So it was a very unusual situation to say the least...
When I finally referred myself to a specialist I was stage 2 and as far as I know I've now been successfully treated but I am VERY lucky to get away with this. It could very easily have been a very different outcome.
Anyway, I'm so sorry for you and your friend. Let us know what happens tomorrow.
Thanks. Glad you are better, sounds like a tough time.
I went to see him today, and although I knew there was very little chance of a recovery, seeing him breathing, albeit via a ventilator, gave me (false) hope. Tonight another mate went, and the nurse pretty much told him our friend was only being kept alive so we could say our goodbyes.
He text me at 22:45 Sat night to say something funny was on tv, and 15 mins later had collapsed.
I think it was perfectly sensible of the Home Secretary to request a review of the terms under which the police deploy firearms so they can be sure on what grounds they can be used.
Unless and until Brand is charged of any offences there should also be some limits on what the media can report on the matter
Isn't it the other way around?
If charges are filed then the matter becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions apply, but currently its only subject to libel laws, not judicial ones, is it not?
Now the police investigation is under way, not if that is prejudiced and any subsequent trial
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not understood the law correctly which is, essentially, that contempt becomes a live issue on arrest, which has not happened.
I just suggest, for the sake of your own dignity, that you educate yourself, rather than continuing to bluster.
How do you know? If witnesses are interfered with by media during a police investigation that could well be contempt.
The AG certainly thinks there is a risk articles could be in breach of the Contempt of Court Act
I know because I've studied Law and am not a moron.
Contempt of Court applies to the risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be prejudiced, that does not exclude police investigations and evidence that produces that could ultimately end up in court
Cyclefree has made the point, as have many others who aren't as legally ignorant as you, that it's very well established that cases are only active and this only applies when an arrest is made or warrant issued.
You've been repeatedly informed of the position, but are the sort of person who simply doesn't listen when informed by qualified people. So I'll give up at that - you are beyond help.
Well the Attorney General is a qualified barrister and disagrees with both you and Cyclefree on this.
Show me one clear legal case or statute that prejudice to the 'course of justice in proceedings' excludes any evidence brought up in police investigations that may later be used in a court of law?
Okay. Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
I await your apology.
Nope, nothing there saying evidence produced in police investigations which could be used in court and criminal proceedings is immune from potentially prejudicial media publication.
The AG as head of the government also has final say on how statute is interpreted and can amend statute if necessary via that government's majority in Parliament to make that clear
Look you've demonstrated your ignorance of the law and obstinacy. One post is enough. We've got the message. But now you're talking unutterable balls. The AG is not the head of government. They do not have the final say on how statute is interpreted. And so on.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
The AG is chief legal adviser to the sovereign and Government and most senior law officer in the land. She also speaks for the government on how the law is interpreted. Tough.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
That's sophistry. Judges rule on how statute is interpreted. Parliament can change statute to say something else.
Or on another reading Parliament can clarify statute so its original intention is clearer if judges have misread it
There is no clarification necessary.
What you are talking about is a completely new law which redefines contempt of court - which is based in common law, not legislation - as something which can occur before legal proceedings are instituted.
That is a concept so ridiculous that even this absurd Tory party would not support a government insane enough to try to so legislate. You an argumentative berk who yet again believes that parliamentary sovereignty means that the law is whatever a Conservative minister says it is on the spur if the moment.
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
Very sorry to hear this @isam. A lot of middle aged people do run into trouble at the gym... Of course exercise is good but for people in their 40s and 50s it's important to keep a close eye on blood pressure and cholesterol to make sure the heart/circulatory system is up to it the rigors its going to be put through...
But when symptoms started occurring he should certainly have looked for help though. Like you say, putting off getting medical help is something we all do (men especially)
Last year I was treated for cancer. I knew I was very likely to have the "C" as early as mid 2021 but I put of referring myself for months and months... Although in mitigation M'lud I was a carer for someone else and they themselves was terminally ill with metastatic breast cancer. So it was a very unusual situation to say the least...
When I finally referred myself to a specialist I was stage 2 and as far as I know I've now been successfully treated but I am VERY lucky to get away with this. It could very easily have been a very different outcome.
Anyway, I'm so sorry for you and your friend. Let us know what happens tomorrow.
Thanks. Glad you are better, sounds like a tough time.
I went to see him today, and although I knew there was very little chance of a recovery, seeing him breathing, albeit via a ventilator, gave me (false) hope. Tonight another mate went, and the nurse pretty much told him our friend was only being kept alive so we could say our goodbyes.
He text me at 22:45 Sat night to say something funny was on tv, and 15 mins later had collapsed.
That’s horrible, isam. I’m really sorry to hear that.
As a note of warning, ibuprofen can promote bleeding, as it increases clotting time (though not as much as aspirin.)
I have just been looking at the betting odds for RWC - with Ireland, South Africa, France and New Zealand all at 3-1 or 4-1 that is not generous. These are the top 4 favourites but only 2 of the 4 can even get to the final so these odds are too low.
England at 10-1 looks about right - possible but not easy. Wales at 22-1 looks much better value - especially with an easier run in than England. Not saying what is going to happen - just where is the value
How is Wales's run-in easier than England's?
Because firstly Wales have already qualified - whereas England have not yet qualified and could even fail to do so if they lose their game against Samoa.
Then in QF England would probably face Fiji where Wales will probaly face Argentina. I know which game I would prefer.
After that Wales and England would have a similar run in.
Terribly sad news, one of my closest friends is in critical condition having suffered a bleed on the brain Saturday night. He was rushed to hospital and had a heart attack in the ambulance. It appears likely they will switch the machine that is keeping him alive off tomorrow. He only turned 48 last month.
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
Sounds like a classic Sub Arachnoid haemorrhage from a brain aneurysm, around 1% of us have them.
There was no strike on Monday last week, and on all days there has been emergency cover.
Comments
https://labourlist.org/2023/09/by-election-rutherglen-result-hamilton-west-scottish-labour/
SLAB seem very, very confident they are going to win Rutherglen.
Because, it's a bitterly divided nation, where any Democrat, and any Republican is guaranteed 45% on the Presidential ballot.
That leaves a very small swing vote.
Right now, much of the country is hurting economically, and some of the policy stances taken by Democrats at national, and State level, are unpopular.
You've just typed that. Look at that. Maybe lay off the isopropyl alcohol and Tizer for a bit?
Even an excitable toddler like you must, on reflection, realise that they are not even remotely similar.
Braverman is a barrister - a piss poor one. She exaggerated her CV and her one outing in court as A-G was eviscerated by the judges before whom she appeared.
Prentis, the A-G on whose legal expertise poor @HYUFD places so much reliance, qualified as a barrister in 1995 then joined the civil service in 1997 and left 7 years later. Her last job was a jobshare in the Treasury Solicitors Department. Her experience and knowledge as a lawyer are vastly less than mine or many of the other lawyers on here, frankly. If she thought that the Times was in breach of the contempt of court laws over what it has written about Mr Brand she would be taking legal action under the laws. She won't because she'd be laughed out of court. It's the power play of a bully and the papers' response to it should be the well known Arkell v Pressdram one.
At the same time, don't forget that the Republicans are going flat out with incredibly unpopular abortion policies.
Your first point is key: there hasn't been a President for a long while who has managed to portray themselves as being there for the whole country.
My fear isn't about Trump policies. I don't agree with most of them, sure, but that's democracy. It's the risk to the American system of government.
Further, it is simply untrue that the AG has the final say on how legislation is interpreted. The courts do.
You are, I'm afraid, completely ignorant on legal matters.
A big element of Trump's support comes from people who are not religious, or at least only nominally religious. Someone like Lauren Boebert is a perfect example. They believe firmly in gun rights, loathe the political establishment, (in some cases) hate Blacks, but also encompass quite large minorities of Black and Hispanic male voters, who detest a lot of the social changes that have taken place over the past 30 years.
Trump is basically the Randall Flagg of US politics, on whom any number of people who might not be much in agreement with each other, can project their resentments and anger.
Maybe concentrate on polls.You have something to contribute there. On this topic you are just embarrassing yourself.
East Kilbride will be a much tougher test mind, if that by-election happens.
Edit: could be interesting if he does. David Canavan is much missed.
Nobody, not even judges, can overrule the elected government of the land on how statute is interpreted. If necessary the government of the day can always amend statute if it has a majority in Parliament, as this government does, to make it clear precisely how that statute is to be interpreted
On the other hand, my local area, like most, has a colourful array of scrotes dealing drugs, committing burglaries, nicking stuff from cars, shoplifting etc. They periodically do time - a month or two, then out they come again for another dose of crime. Usually it's a fairly small number of scrotes who conspire make an area miserable.
My business, not long before I bought the previous owners out, was done over - the back door to a workshop got smashed in and about £30k in engineering tools and equipment disappeared one night. We found some of it for sale on Facebook marketplace - we eventually persuaded the Plod (who were very uninterested) to go and nick the vendor, of whom they were well aware - he turned out to have a record a mile long for things like handling stolen goods.
I'm afraid I'm of the view that someone like that is pretty much un-curable, and at some point, instead of namby-pambying about with repeated sentences of 3 months plus a bit of community service we need to start dishing out more like 25 years.
Essentially, I think we should have two tracks - first(ish) offenders - lots of effort to get them reformed and back into the community in a useful capacity. Serial repeat offenders - dump them as cheaply as possible where they can't do society any more harm, and more or less throw away the key.
You are a complete moron.
This is what the A-G's Department itself says -
"The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) provides legal advice and support to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General (the Law Officers) who give legal advice to government. The AGO helps the Law Officers perform other duties in the public interest, such as looking at sentences which may be too low."
You can read it for yourself here - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office.
I am pretty certain they have Google in Epping. You might like to try it sometime.
The A-G performs the same role in government as the General Counsel does in a corporation or a solicitor does vis a vis their client: an advisor on the law and someone who sometimes appears before the courts - or instructs others to do so - on the client's behalf.
The Attorney-General’s opinion is only an opinion.
But I must leave the eminent @SirNorfolkPassmore to fight the good fight. Other enjoyments await. Night all.
The use of it is limited to things like Nazi war crimes where offences may not have technically been clear but the conduct was clearly wrong. It's ludicrous, and indescribably thick, to think it is in any way relevant.
Again - you are ignorant.
Braverman: 780 million ‘refugees’ shows rules must change
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/daily-telegraph-front-page-2023-09-26/
Lucky us.
Sunak knows that she will be happy to stick the knife in and depart at a suitable time where she can play the martyr and further ingratiate herself to the Tory membership .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_gap
Your view is that the opinion of the Government has the force of law. That is just not how it works.
Isolationism is where the political horsehoe meets up.
Like Borg drones many Americans no longer have a functioning brain but are just part of a hive mind that feeds them constant reasons to be angry over everything and to scapegoat others .
Being angry is now a raison d’etre .
Facts cannot survive against that.
One of the best hits of 1993 imo, K Klass with "Let Me Show You", now in HD video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCfzNti4qmA
Then there's always a point if/when a charge happens when a whole bunch of stuff that's already in the public domain has to never be mentioned again and everyone needs to pretend said information never existed. Megan Stammers today, gone tomorrow.
No active proceedings so no contempt?
Extreme Temperatures Around The World
@extremetemps
Extraordinary, historic heat wave in #Mexico
The temperature at Chinipas yesterday rose to 47.5C/118F,we are at world record levels for end of September!
Only Makkah ,Saudi Arabia ever recorded such temperature in the last week of September.
New research has found that half of those surveyed aged 18-34 prioritise affordability of everyday items"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/25/millennials-affordable-everyday-items-china-security-survey/
That's fine because it's a qualified rather than absolute right. But the restriction needs to be proportionate, and it is - it is set out in the legislation HYUFD has failed to read.
The law is clear - you can comment on matters that might at some point go to court as long as they are not "active", that being clearly defined. The courts can, and routinely do, manage the issue of ensuring juries set to one side things that may be put into the public domain prior to this period, but are not presented in evidence at trial.
Additionally, an individual is protected by the civil law of libel. But that is law that protects their reputation - the law protecting their right to a fair trial is separate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66917147
Maybe 2029 he'll get a seat...
I'd have thought those tests and registration would be even more important for short term lets, with no real relationship between the landlord and those staying there.
There are clever exceptions, like spare beds (the original purpose of Airbnb) and hostels, which also cover mountain bothies (https://andywightman.scot/2023/09/short-term-lets-the-case-of-mountaineering-club-huts/)
So begins swingback? 🤔
It will go red next year IMHO.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
I would say it's amazing that Suella Braverman so obviously wants to be PM given how out of her depth she is but then we just had Liz Truss.
Sue-Ellen is jockeying for the contest to become LOTO after Election 24. But she's done for... If she'd been able to sort out the boats then maybe... but as it is she's just a pound shop Pretty Patel.
Next Con leader and LOTO is Kemi (as I tipped here last year)
The cause of it seems to be overdoing it at the gym last Monday - terrible neck pain followed instantly by excruciating headache, and despite being offered to be taken to A&E, he just dosed up on Neurofen all week, which didn’t do any good. Had he gone straight there he’d probably be recovering from an operation now. Someone said he couldn’t be bothered with the possible 16 hour wait at the hospital, others said he did go but there was a strike, although I don’t know if that is true or not
Either way, it seems like putting off medical treatment has cost him his life. We all do it I think, hoping wherever is bothering us is just going to go away, but it’s crazy - even if turns out to be nothing, always best to be sure.
But when symptoms started occurring he should certainly have looked for help though. Like you say, putting off getting medical help is something we all do (men especially)
Last year I was treated for cancer. I knew I was very likely to have the "C" as early as mid 2021 but I put of referring myself for months and months... Although in mitigation M'lud I was a carer for someone else and they themselves was terminally ill with metastatic breast cancer. So it was a very unusual situation to say the least...
When I finally referred myself to a specialist I was stage 2 and as far as I know I've now been successfully treated but I am VERY lucky to get away with this. It could very easily have been a very different outcome.
Anyway, I'm so sorry for you and your friend. Let us know what happens tomorrow.
This thread has been cut short at Birmingham
I went to see him today, and although I knew there was very little chance of a recovery, seeing him breathing, albeit via a ventilator, gave me (false) hope. Tonight another mate went, and the nurse pretty much told him our friend was only being kept alive so we could say our goodbyes.
He text me at 22:45 Sat night to say something funny was on tv, and 15 mins later had collapsed.
What you are talking about is a completely new law which redefines contempt of court - which is based in common law, not legislation - as something which can occur before legal proceedings are instituted.
That is a concept so ridiculous that even this absurd Tory party would not support a government insane enough to try to so legislate.
You an argumentative berk who yet again believes that parliamentary sovereignty means that the law is whatever a Conservative minister says it is on the spur if the moment.
As a note of warning, ibuprofen can promote bleeding, as it increases clotting time (though not as much as aspirin.)
Then in QF England would probably face Fiji where Wales will probaly face Argentina. I know which game I would prefer.
After that Wales and England would have a similar run in.
There was no strike on Monday last week, and on all days there has been emergency cover.
Sad news.