OT Just watching the Partygate Channel 4 docudrama on youtube. I know it's dramatised for TV etc, but oh my God...
It obviously heightened the reality for effect but I didn’t see anyone challenging the essential facts after it was first broadcast. What I still don’t understand is why partygate fines were a fraction of the average of the thousands handed out let alone the really punitive ones.
Establishment TUD, they are in thrall to the inbreds that run English empire. The police / justice system at the top are all linked and in cahoots with these morons
One MP who spoke to the agitators said the groups believed that 20 to 25 letters of no confidence had either been submitted or were about to be submitted to the 1922 Committee.
“What was clear is that they want to get rid of the prime minister; what was less clear was who they wanted to replace him with,” the MP said. “I told them I didn’t think the British public would forgive us for changing prime minister again and that it would likely hurt not help our electoral fortunes.”
I'm reminded of the Shadow Cabinet minister who cautioned against trying to topple Corbyn in 2016 because Labour's procedures meant he would win again, 'leaving us looking not only unelectable but fucking stupid.'
The Tories don't seem to need help with the latter right now though.
I don’t believe any of this stuff is true. Who would even stand? Who would want to be PM for one crap year when, if you have the support to win, the alternative could be LOTO through a weak Starmer ministry and then at least one full term. Granted, the downside risk is a strong Labour win and no prospect of being PM, but if you’re ambitious now then I think post-election is when you move.
Has to be a fighting chance Boris goes for Mid-Beds or Tamworth at the GE on exactly that basis.
Understand that any Conservative leadership challenge would come from desperate individual MPs looking to roll the dice to save their own skins. It will not be driven by Penny's people or Kemi's people in any orchestrated fashion because, as you say, they don't especially want to own defeat.
But, if panic ensues, they may not get the choice.
It gives two mechanisms for an early-ish election.
Rishi going early to head off defenestration OR If the defenestration has occurred any, even slight, new leader bounce will result in the new leader going to the polls within the first month or two.
One MP who spoke to the agitators said the groups believed that 20 to 25 letters of no confidence had either been submitted or were about to be submitted to the 1922 Committee.
“What was clear is that they want to get rid of the prime minister; what was less clear was who they wanted to replace him with,” the MP said. “I told them I didn’t think the British public would forgive us for changing prime minister again and that it would likely hurt not help our electoral fortunes.”
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
There is also the necessity for deterrence. If Britain wants its Jewish community to feel safe, we need to see some exemplary sentences. Eg like the year in jail given to the guy who put bacon on a mosque doorknob
At the time I thought this was an insane sentence. But maybe it is justifiable as a deterrent
If so, we must extend the same protection to the Jews. Put some of these jihad guys in prison for a year or two. And a couple of the students as well
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
Perhaps more like "Struggle" as used in the famous work "My Struggle" by a well known German politician.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Xi has to be in Tier 1. Quasi genocide against the Uighurs. Illegally seized and crushed Hong Kong. Deliberately seeded Covid around the world (after initially trying to cover it up)
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
If Sunak is still the PM, I can see him go through to the end as Major did. "The government is still hard at work delivering on the people's priorities, so we are not going to call an early general election" says Andrew Bowie on TV.
Its a long time since we have had a January election. Various people saying how crazy that would be - and it would be - but when you are facing down ELE you want something crazy to save you. So play the wild card and see what happens.
If Sunak is still the PM. From what I am reading in the press this weekend, Tory MPs have now fixated on the coming ELE. Many voices saying that it would be ridiculous to change leader again again again. But what is the worst than can happen? ELE? Already priced in, so roll the dice and hope you get snake eyes.
I think the argument against rolling isn't what reaction there would be from the public. It is that there is no obvious alternative. The prospect of the Tory party openly ripping itself apart as the various factions refuse to behave is delicious, but surely even they aren't that crazy? Oh yeah, Lee Anderson is deputy chair, so...
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Really? iirc Trump's invadey-ness deficit was why GOP neocons and John Bolton (who's got a book out in time for Christmas) hated him.
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Xi has to be in Tier 1. Quasi genocide against the Uighurs. Illegally seized and crushed Hong Kong. Deliberately seeded Covid around the world (after initially trying to cover it up)
He's more like tier 0.5 to me, out there as the most dangerous and, frankly, evil ruler in the world today. Putin aspires to this but it is the combination of inclination and resources that makes Xi different.
Btw, I have no idea what Sunak will do but I think the CS advice is utter rubbish. And manages to be both craven and self-important, which is quite a feat. The CS makes an art out of not listening to elected politicians, so why they'd be remotely troubled by not having any is beyond me. Not having anyone to blame I presume.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Xi has to be in Tier 1. Quasi genocide against the Uighurs. Illegally seized and crushed Hong Kong. Deliberately seeded Covid around the world (after initially trying to cover it up)
He's more like tier 0.5 to me, out there as the most dangerous and, frankly, evil ruler in the world today. Putin aspires to this but it is the combination of inclination and resources that makes Xi different.
Yes, very arguable. Given his immense power - head of the world’s biggest economy (by PPP) - he is certainly the most dangerous
I don’t think he is evil however. As in “wants to do heinous acts”. I think he is more a brutal, ruthless, amoral, nationalist autocrat. If entire nations have to suffer so that China prospers, so be it
He’s more like an aggressively successful Roman Emperor
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
I'll give that a like just for teaching me a new word - inspissated.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
You think 'crusade' doesn’t imply violence? Calling for a 'crusade' within the context of geopolitics (rather than another context, such as a crusade to get official recognition for Welsh cheddar) could certainly be considered violent.
If Sunak is still the PM, I can see him go through to the end as Major did. "The government is still hard at work delivering on the people's priorities, so we are not going to call an early general election" says Andrew Bowie on TV.
Its a long time since we have had a January election. Various people saying how crazy that would be - and it would be - but when you are facing down ELE you want something crazy to save you. So play the wild card and see what happens.
If Sunak is still the PM. From what I am reading in the press this weekend, Tory MPs have now fixated on the coming ELE. Many voices saying that it would be ridiculous to change leader again again again. But what is the worst than can happen? ELE? Already priced in, so roll the dice and hope you get snake eyes.
I think the argument against rolling isn't what reaction there would be from the public. It is that there is no obvious alternative. The prospect of the Tory party openly ripping itself apart as the various factions refuse to behave is delicious, but surely even they aren't that crazy? Oh yeah, Lee Anderson is deputy chair, so...
On your first paragraph, surely if the government was determined to deliver on the people's priorities then they would indeed call a general election straight away?
I think when considering the next election, my theory of management decision-making applies: if there is an option not to make a decision, that is the decision management will take. So barring some black swan event that either forces an election, or causes a sudden recovery in Tory fortunes, that means October 2024 or later.
Will there be a point between October 2024 and January 2025 where it is no longer possible to defer a decision?
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Really? iirc Trump's invadey-ness deficit was why GOP neocons and John Bolton (who's got a book out in time for Christmas) hated him.
I'd put Trump, and perhaps Erdogan, higher up. Whether all the way to Tier 2 - unsure.
Trump attempted to overthrow the US democratic system. Erdogan has done his own manipulations, and does indeed continue with illegal occupations following on from illegal invasions,
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
You think 'crusade' doesn’t imply violence? Calling for a 'crusade' within the context of geopolitics (rather than another context, such as a crusade to get official recognition for Welsh cheddar) could certainly be considered violent.
Yes, I don’t know how crusade or “jihad” can be seen as anything but violent in the geopolitical context of a war in the Levant
Personally, I think October most likely, but with election fever all year in both countries the security risk, such as it is, is just going to have to be dealt with.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
As South Park memorably put its 200/201st episode spectacular, in what was an entirely and unironically censored ending speech at original broadcast. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence
We know some people see offending others as very bad, and some groups would take advantage of that to suggest others are not allowed to offend in certain areas, including de facto blasphemy laws if they can get away with it.
There is also the necessity for deterrence. If Britain wants its Jewish community to feel safe, we need to see some exemplary sentences. Eg like the year in jail given to the guy who put bacon on a mosque doorknob
At the time I thought this was an insane sentence. But maybe it is justifiable as a deterrent
If so, we must extend the same protection to the Jews. Put some of these jihad guys in prison for a year or two. And a couple of the students as well
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Works for me. Chilling. What many on here don't realise is that this is an everyday occurance for residents of Gaza AND parts of the West Bank. Settlers will be settlers.....
Regarding the situation in the middle east I think it is too complicated to reduce to a good v evil situation, and that taking a side in general terms (ie Israel v Palestine) is not a good move. This is a 'twas ever thus' situation. Ultimately the only position I can think of to take on it is to try and work out towards a solution that leads to peace, not a particularly original one, but one that still has merit.
There is a fundamental difference between the two sides.
One is a democracy that acts within the norms of international politics at a state level. They are not about to launch a nuclear strike on anyone. You may deplore their actions but fundamentally they are part of the international order.
Are you really confident that Hamas wouldn’t nuke the Jews if they had the chance?
That tells you all you need to know about which side you should support.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
The context here is pretty obvious - its the same reason people would avoid (or be advised to avoid) use of the word crusade in anything even tangently relating to the middle east, even though it can indeed be used in other contexts.
I think when considering the next election, my theory of management decision-making applies: if there is an option not to make a decision, that is the decision management will take. So barring some black swan event that either forces an election, or causes a sudden recovery in Tory fortunes, that means October 2024 or later.
Will there be a point between October 2024 and January 2025 where it is no longer possible to defer a decision?
Yes. Parliament dissolves by law on 16th December 2024.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
Now those in favour of him still don't have the balls to admit their mistake, so they're making it all about 'time in office' and 'insurmountable' things. Well, that's not what you said when you insisted he was the man for the job.
There's a year left for SOMEBODY to prove they actually want to provide decent Government. As far as I'm concerned it's anyone's who wants it. Chishti could probably do a better job.
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
The philosophy is broadly sound but you can quibble with the details.
I’d put Myanmar lower - they have limited reach outside their borders and although the treatment of the Rohingya is horrific it’s not much worse than many others have done. I’d also put Lukashenko lower - he’s a marginal player without much capability or agency beyond what Putin gives him.
More me Erdpgan is the closest to Netenyahu
The treatment of the Rohingya is a lot worse than most bad stuff that happens in the world. At best they have rendered millions stateless, at worst it amounts to genocide. The Myanmar junta are really a bad lot - although sadly their treatment of the Rohingya is popular with many in the country.
Worse than most bad stuff, but not too different from Serbia or Rwanda for example. Someone like Xi or MBS is trying to export their particular brand of nastiness. I’d probably put the Taliban in category 2 though.
1. Global threats 2. Either (a) potential global threats that are confined to their country; or (b) lesser degree of nastiness but global reach 3. Lesser degree of nastiness largely confirned to their own country 4. Bad people but not a danger to others 5. Everyone else
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Really? iirc Trump's invadey-ness deficit was why GOP neocons and John Bolton (who's got a book out in time for Christmas) hated him.
It was, but there's surprisingly little difference in opinion between Denocratic neocons and Republican ones.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Regarding the situation in the middle east I think it is too complicated to reduce to a good v evil situation, and that taking a side in general terms (ie Israel v Palestine) is not a good move. This is a 'twas ever thus' situation. Ultimately the only position I can think of to take on it is to try and work out towards a solution that leads to peace, not a particularly original one, but one that still has merit.
I've just watched "The Human Factor" on Netflix.
It is a documentary covering 30-years of diplomatic effort to secure peace in the Middle East, using interviews with key figures.
It reminded me of how disastrous was the assassination of Rabin and how poisonous is Netanyahu.
Is he? Why was he pissing around in Israel and sleeping in that little bed that Bibi made for him in a shoebox instead of campaigning in the constituencies of those two by-elections?
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
Now those in favour of him still don't have the balls to admit their mistake, so they're making it all about 'time in office' and 'insurmountable' things. Well, that's not what you said when you insisted he was the man for the job.
There's a year left for SOMEBODY to prove they actually want to provide decent Government. As far as I'm concerned it's anyone's who wants it. Chishti could probably do a better job.
Yes. REMEMBER REHMAN as the campaign slogan.
He is targeting a 100% increase in his vote. To two votes.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
A new UK PM moves in the day after the election if they win a majority, a new US President isn't inaugrated until January so I don't see a big problem.
I think the point is more that two of the 'five eyes' will be totally wrapped up in election campaigning throughout Oct/Nov if both go to the polls.
Shouldn't it really be ten eyes? Or is it to reflect all the stuff that happens that we turn a blind eye to?
Anyway, say New Zealand and Canada were having elections at the same time, no-one would even notice. So its that its the US election that is the issue, and its because Trump has a decent chance to move it to an Erdogan style "democracy", and that risk is similar whenever we hold our election.
June/July for me. CPI base effects are key. That is, the rise in CPI inflation in the July CPI published August 2024 due to the previous fall in energy prices disappearing from the CPI means that a favourable economic window will slam shut by August.
Has September CPI been released yet? Pensions and benefits usually linked.
If not are there any forecasts?
will be 8.5% from earnings assuming they don't fiddle it.
Regarding the situation in the middle east I think it is too complicated to reduce to a good v evil situation, and that taking a side in general terms (ie Israel v Palestine) is not a good move. This is a 'twas ever thus' situation. Ultimately the only position I can think of to take on it is to try and work out towards a solution that leads to peace, not a particularly original one, but one that still has merit.
There is a fundamental difference between the two sides.
One is a democracy that acts within the norms of international politics at a state level. They are not about to launch a nuclear strike on anyone. You may deplore their actions but fundamentally they are part of the international order.
Are you really confident that Hamas wouldn’t nuke the Jews if they had the chance?
That tells you all you need to know about which side you should support.
It seems to me that the current paths of both are going to lead to perpetual conflict. It is not picking a football team to support. Support should be qualified and honest constructive criticism of both is just as important as the support offered.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
Now those in favour of him still don't have the balls to admit their mistake, so they're making it all about 'time in office' and 'insurmountable' things. Well, that's not what you said when you insisted he was the man for the job.
There's a year left for SOMEBODY to prove they actually want to provide decent Government. As far as I'm concerned it's anyone's who wants it. Chishti could probably do a better job.
I think you are once again getting in an overly emotional flap about this. Nothing I said indicated he wasn't useless. That's been admitted many times and that you may not have seen that or remembered that doesn't change it occurring.
I said I was sure he was trying his best, I did not say that his best was any good - indeed, the point was acknowledgement that he has been a real disappointment. You are correct that he has failed on the terms on which he came in, and I have said that many times too as have others - he was given some time to see if he could sort things out, steady things, and the fact is he hasn't achieved that. He was brought in to turn things around and hasn't.
The reason my comment on this occasion focused on the insurmountables was to look at some of the broader issues confronting a government in decline 1 year out, where even the most amazing leader would struggle. That in no way means Sunak escapes censure for his failure over the past year on the things he could impact. Nor does it mean that nothing at all could be done better or differently even now.
What it means is that some really big problems can take time to address, simply for issues like the passing of legislation and to see the effects of that legislation. Some things can be done swiftly, but some things cannot, and 1 year of Sunak failing to turn things around has left them little time to try other things.
That was the point, not some defence of Sunak. That you saw it that way rather shows your lingering and pretty personal anger over his taking over, and wanting people to abase themselves for not trusting in the Truss or something*. And that's ok, but pretending people still won't criticise Sunak is just provably incorrect.
Yes there's things that can be done with 1 year left. But options open with 2 years left will not all be available 1 year left. Why that point triggers you I don't know, it certainly doesn't suggest nothing can be done just because some things cannot be done. I guess things like legislative time don't exist?
*I would point out I for one thought Truss had bought herself time and would not be ousted, and have suggested had her decline not been so precipitous and herself a little more prepared, that they probably would be no worse off.
Why not January 2025? It will be the last possible moment.
The answer is embedded in your post.
To which let's add, it screws up everyone's Christmas / New Year No one who matters to mainstream parties has any money in January: it's literally the worst financial month with a long haul from the early pay before Christmas through to payday, which comes too late legally for the election But we come back to your own answer. It is utter desperation and that will be political suicide for the Conservative Party. The media will eviscerate them. So will the electorate.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
Now those in favour of him still don't have the balls to admit their mistake, so they're making it all about 'time in office' and 'insurmountable' things. Well, that's not what you said when you insisted he was the man for the job.
There's a year left for SOMEBODY to prove they actually want to provide decent Government. As far as I'm concerned it's anyone's who wants it. Chishti could probably do a better job.
If your political party offers a choice of Mr Sunak and La Truss then clearly the best option is to change parties or (if no other party impresses) to take a little break from politics until your party regains a modicum of talent and responsibility.
Apparently Jenrick is saying the plan on stopping the boats is 'beginning to work'. I'm sure that means that stopping the bleeding of votes to Labour and Reform (for different reasons) will 'begin to work' by the time of the election.
So Sunaks excuse for delaying the election to the last possible moment will be the USA election .
The most dangerous period in America will be the time between election day and inauguration. If Trump wins, he will be planning his vendetta, if Trump loses there will be insurrection.
Yet another reason not to have a GE in Nov to Jan.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
The UK historically has elections out of winter months . Dec 2019 was a rarity . Perhaps the Tories final Hail Mary is to ensure their postal votes get in before some severe winter weather intervenes on the day !
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Never sure why this has to be a competition. When tensions rise in the middle east both muslims and jews here suffer more attacks, abuse and intimidation. Which one gets a bit more of that shouldn't change our response.
Apparently Jenrick is saying the plan on stopping the boats is 'beginning to work'. I'm sure that means that stopping the bleeding of votes to Labour and Reform (for different reasons) will 'begin to work' by the time of the election.
There is also the necessity for deterrence. If Britain wants its Jewish community to feel safe, we need to see some exemplary sentences. Eg like the year in jail given to the guy who put bacon on a mosque doorknob
At the time I thought this was an insane sentence. But maybe it is justifiable as a deterrent
If so, we must extend the same protection to the Jews. Put some of these jihad guys in prison for a year or two. And a couple of the students as well
I'm a bit worried about your repeated references to knobs and streaky bacon.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
I don't think Sunak is useless - he would doubtless make a competent junior minister in a technocratic portfolio. He is completely out of his depth, however, having been accidentally promoted twice far beyond his abilities.
He is missing the things a successful Prime Minister needs: a compelling vision of where he wants to take the country, the ability to communicate that to the country and the team to help him fulfil it. This might just about pass in easy times with a poorer opposition, but in admittedly challenging times he just doesn't cut it.
Why not January 2025? It will be the last possible moment.
The answer is embedded in your post.
To which let's add, it screws up everyone's Christmas / New Year No one who matters to mainstream parties has any money in January: it's literally the worst financial month with a long haul from the early pay before Christmas through to payday, which comes too late legally for the election But we come back to your own answer. It is utter desperation and that will be political suicide for the Conservative Party. The media will eviscerate them. So will the electorate.
All true. But by the time we get to 22nd October 2024 and he still hasn't called an "early" election and is facing down ELE, what do you do?
And he won't have called it already because Sunak is both frit and useless at politics. Wait and see, keep watching those economy metrics improving a few basis points a month, hope.
So, it's 12 months from now and we need to know what PM Rishi will do. Call an orthodox election knowing you are very likely to leave the party utterly smashed?
Or play the only wildcard you have left - timing. A Christmas election was seen as madness in 2019, yet Boris! used it as part of the campaign. His Love Actually election broadcast was - and still is - utterly brilliant.
Now we have the start of campaigning the week before Christmas. Play lots of "Last Christmas before Labour ruin it" lines. Then into the grey and bleak January - "don't let labour make every month feel like January" etc
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
We literally had a cover up of mass gang rapes and sexual abuse of young girls by Muslims in this country in multiple cities by the police, councils, social services and the media. The idea that Muslims aren't protected in the UK is laughable.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
Now those in favour of him still don't have the balls to admit their mistake, so they're making it all about 'time in office' and 'insurmountable' things. Well, that's not what you said when you insisted he was the man for the job.
There's a year left for SOMEBODY to prove they actually want to provide decent Government. As far as I'm concerned it's anyone's who wants it. Chishti could probably do a better job.
If your political party offers a choice of Mr Sunak and La Truss then clearly the best option is to change parties or (if no other party impresses) to take a little break from politics until your party regains a modicum of talent and responsibility.
Neither looked that bad.
Truss's campaign was deeply confused by being the Boris loyalist candidate saying he should not have gone, whilst advocating a big change economically from what he had done (the official Borisian line we're supposed to swallow is he had no control over his Chancellor and totally would have done differently). But her background as a minister was hardly appalling compared to some and her campaigning talk was standard please the members stuff. I remember saying I didn't really understand why some people reacted against her so strongly. Of course, she backed that up a bit once in office.
Sunak's campaign was lacklustre and he simply was unable to connect with the Members, and he looked out of his depth, which was a bit of a surprise given at least presentationally he had done pretty well as Chancellor. His time as PM has kind of reinforced that, as he has moments of understated delivery, interspersed with a lack of urgency on most matters and sporadic and unconvincing efforts to please the base which are ineffective in any case.
I know it's easy to say both were just obviously awful, but they were both high flyers and reasonably competent seeming options. Looking at alternatives you had some inexperienced figures setting out their stall for future contests, a couple of older hands who had missed their chances already, and a few others of equivalent experience.
It's not obvious that there were significantly better options than the pair of them, indeed, they could have come up with worse!
That may be part of the point of the criticism of course, but two high ranking Cabinet Members who had not really had any major scandals or issues hanging around? They weren't that bad seeming.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
Seems about right. The county has massive problems, and with renewal off the table (they've tried it twice already, once with success, they won't get another opportunity) the only political liferaft is to actually solve those problems. But having caused some of them and been unable to deal with the others in 13.5 years, there's no time or energy left to do more than presentational or figleaf solutions. I don't doubt Sunak is trying his best, but some things are insurmountable.
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Pull the other one. He's useless. He's always been useless. Those who supported him were told it, those who watched him in the hustings could see it, and the members rightly gave him a swerve and went for someone who couldn't find the exit to a room over him because they could see it too - something they've been grossly and unfairly attacked for.
I don't think Sunak is useless - he would doubtless make a competent junior minister in a technocratic portfolio. He is completely out of his depth, however, having been accidentally promoted twice far beyond his abilities.
He is missing the things a successful Prime Minister needs: a compelling vision of where he wants to take the country, the ability to communicate that to the country and the team to help him fulfil it. This might just about pass in easy times with a poorer opposition, but in admittedly challenging times he just doesn't cut it.
I'm old enough to remember the glowing tributes on here given to Dr Death's genius Eat Out to Help Out wheeze, folk positively boasting how many shitty pub burgers they'd had on the cheap. Happy, innocent days..
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Never sure why this has to be a competition. When tensions rise in the middle east both muslims and jews here suffer more attacks, abuse and intimidation. Which one gets a bit more of that shouldn't change our response.
Who said anything about a competition? Bit I think some on here should try to think how Jews in the UK may be feeling.
I'm not one of those Mordaunt maniacs who think all would have been well if only she were in charge, but it is an interesting what if had she gotten just a few more of the Badenoch nominators and gotten through to the Members ballot, given I believe the polls showed any of the candidates would bean Sunak.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
A Tory minister *claimed* she was fired because her faith made colleagues uncomfortable.
It's a peculiar claim when there were other Muslim ministers in place at the time, and she herself was reappointed to a ministerial position a few months later.
I'm not one of those Mordaunt maniacs who think all would have been well if only she were in charge, but it is an interesting what if had she gotten just a few more of the Badenoch nominators and gotten through to the Members ballot, given I believe the polls showed any of the candidates would bean Sunak.
It would have to have been one of those surprising on the upside scenarios (which tbf applies to most incoming pols nowadays). Aside from a bit of sword holding, the evidence for Mordaunt rising to the occasion when given positions of responsibilty isn't great.
I'm not one of those Mordaunt maniacs who think all would have been well if only she were in charge, but it is an interesting what if had she gotten just a few more of the Badenoch nominators and gotten through to the Members ballot, given I believe the polls showed any of the candidates would bean Sunak.
Mourdaunt was about the only one of the nominees who’d have lost to Sunak with the members. She had a terrible campaign, had very little to say on anything, and it came out that she’d lied about Stonewall drafting the gender bill she brought forward as a minister.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
A Tory minister *claimed* she was fired because her faith made colleagues uncomfortable.
It's a peculiar claim when there were other Muslim ministers in place at the time, and she herself was reappointed to a ministerial position a few months later.
Especially peculiar given that being Muslim was a fundamental part of her being put in the HoL and then government.
There is another solution to Rishi's, and the Conservatives election dilemma, that Boris Johnson might have adopted, and to which someone alluded upthread. Not entirely, I hope in a serious context, BUT they just might bring in legislation to postpone the election until the Spring. Could the Lords stop it? Would the King sign it off? I don't know, the level of honour in this Government suggests to me that they just might try!
I think when considering the next election, my theory of management decision-making applies: if there is an option not to make a decision, that is the decision management will take. So barring some black swan event that either forces an election, or causes a sudden recovery in Tory fortunes, that means October 2024 or later.
Will there be a point between October 2024 and January 2025 where it is no longer possible to defer a decision?
Yes. Parliament dissolves by law on 16th December 2024.
But an election campaign with a Christmas break would be a final two fingered salute at the electorate. So, if Rishi wants to avoid that (it requires the political acumen of Winnie the Pooh, which I'm fairly sure Rishi has on his day) that makes E Day December 19... When would he have to call that?
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Never sure why this has to be a competition. When tensions rise in the middle east both muslims and jews here suffer more attacks, abuse and intimidation. Which one gets a bit more of that shouldn't change our response.
Who said anything about a competition? Bit I think some on here should try to think how Jews in the UK may be feeling.
I think when considering the next election, my theory of management decision-making applies: if there is an option not to make a decision, that is the decision management will take. So barring some black swan event that either forces an election, or causes a sudden recovery in Tory fortunes, that means October 2024 or later.
Will there be a point between October 2024 and January 2025 where it is no longer possible to defer a decision?
Yes. Parliament dissolves by law on 16th December 2024.
But an election campaign with a Christmas break would be a final two fingered salute at the electorate. So, if Rishi wants to avoid that (it requires the political acumen of Winnie the Pooh, which I'm fairly sure Rishi has on his day) that makes E Day December 19... When would he have to call that?
No chance who would want political feaks chapping your door as you prepare for christmas. Must be over in November or he hangs on to the death
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
It’s a very unsettling case on a whole number of levels, but the way they go about ‘justice’ just seems very alien, starting with the elected judges and prosecutors.
Several of the people charged here are lawyers apparently charged with being lawyers, in the hope that they agree to take a deal to testify against their own clients.
I’ve heard similar rumours about Giuliani, but from the angle that he’s the second target of the prosecutors and therefore won’t be offered a deal.
IIRC it’s about 90% of cases that never reach a trial, thanks to plea-bargaining that gives someone the choice between six months and 60 years, depending on whether they plead guilty or are found guilty. That just doesn’t seem particulalry fair to me.
Most worrying, from the political point of view, is that none of this appears to be damaging Trump’s ratings, and in fact has seen an increase in black support *as a result of* his legal issues, something with which that community has always protested. Whether or not that changes as the cases progress (and yes, one member of this board has one poll from a few months ago) remains to be seen, but it’s far from certain he actually gets hurt.
For all the problems with the UK justice system, there’s not half the problems there are in the US.
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Xi has to be in Tier 1. Quasi genocide against the Uighurs. Illegally seized and crushed Hong Kong. Deliberately seeded Covid around the world (after initially trying to cover it up)
He's more like tier 0.5 to me, out there as the most dangerous and, frankly, evil ruler in the world today. Putin aspires to this but it is the combination of inclination and resources that makes Xi different.
Yes, very arguable. Given his immense power - head of the world’s biggest economy (by PPP) - he is certainly the most dangerous
I don’t think he is evil however. As in “wants to do heinous acts”. I think he is more a brutal, ruthless, amoral, nationalist autocrat. If entire nations have to suffer so that China prospers, so be it
He’s more like an aggressively successful Roman Emperor
I think this is right. As China becomes more wealthy and politically powerful Xi is using that wealth and power to secure China’s borders and its resource interests beyond those borders.
It is deeply unethical and remorseless, but is rational in a way that Putin is not. Russia is attempting to turn the clock back to a hegemonic period, China is anticipating a future hegemony.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
1. Yes, as do black children. All minorities do this. 2 and 3. No and no, and I think the peak of antisemitism on display amongst a minority of those who support the Palestinian struggle should be a real wake up call for those of us who are instinctively more pro-Palestinian. It has shocked me and has forced me to reconsider my position.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
Yes but if you want to call for a one state secular solution, call for that. Don’t write something that is plausibly genocidal.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
I think they've got to the point where a policy change that doesn't immediately improve people's situation will be dismissed as a Sunak gimmick even if it was popular before he did it, and revoking the ECHR is exactly in that category. Other parties will point to all the uncontroversial, popular rights that are endangered as a result, and any replacement Bill will become mired in controversy as people battle over the details.
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
I think they've got to the point where a policy change that doesn't immediately improve people's situation will be dismissed as a Sunak gimmick even if it was popular before he did it, and revoking the ECHR is exactly in that category. Other parties will point to all the uncontroversial, popular rights that are endangered as a result, and any replacement Bill will become mired in controversy as people battle over the details.
I won't pretend that I've got my finger on the nation's pulse, but my view is that the public has lost all trust in this government and the Conservative Party. I don't see how they can regain that trust without a major reinvention. I also don't see anyone within the Conservatives who is capable of doing that, or a will within the party for a major reinvention.
@maxh, above is right about endemic ill-treatment of minorities, especially in schools. As one who was proud of my Welsh ancestry I used to get abuse at my (grammar) school. Not a lot, but some.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
I've been to Israel (and east Jerusalem), but it was sadly not practical to go to the West Bank. More to the point, there are many Israelis who support a 1-state secular solution. Support for a 1-state secular solution is not the same as calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide, even if you think its supporters are naïve about the practicalities.
Questioning Israel's right to exist does have those overtones. Do you think overtones are enough to secure a prosecution?
Tier 4: all the various semi-populist somewhat corrupt but not so dangerous leaders around the world (I’d have put Johnson here if he were still PM)
Tier 5: normal democratic politicians including ones we like or don’t like, from Truss to Rishi to Starmer to Macron to Biden.
Interesting exercise! Not sure what Erdogan has to do to get into Tier 2 - he's illegally occupying parts of Cyprus and Syria, which is a great deal more than Orban or Modi are doing. The US is occupying various parts of the world uninvited, but Trump was less 'invadey' than his predecessors, which seemed afaicr to be part of the reason why the liberal establishment disliked him so much.
Really? iirc Trump's invadey-ness deficit was why GOP neocons and John Bolton (who's got a book out in time for Christmas) hated him.
Most Trump voters couldn't care less about what happens in the rest of the world and don't want any more US involvement in foreign wars. They just want to slam the door shut on immigration, build the huge wall on the Mexican border and impose huge tariffs on goods imported from China and the EU
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Is probation the same as a suspended sentence? So they've technically been given a prison sentence, but they don't have to go to prison...?
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
It’s a very unsettling case on a whole number of levels, but the way they go about ‘justice’ just seems very alien, starting with the elected judges and prosecutors.
Several of the people charged here are lawyers apparently charged with being lawyers, in the hope that they agree to take a deal to testify against their own clients.
I’ve heard similar rumours about Giuliani, but from the angle that he’s the second target of the prosecutors and therefore won’t be offered a deal.
IIRC it’s about 90% of cases that never reach a trial, thanks to plea-bargaining that gives someone the choice between six months and 60 years, depending on whether they plead guilty or are found guilty. That just doesn’t seem particulalry fair to me.
Most worrying, from the political point of view, is that none of this appears to be damaging Trump’s ratings, and in fact has seen an increase in black support *as a result of* his legal issues, something with which that community has always protested. Whether or not that changes as the cases progress (and yes, one member of this board has one poll from a few months ago) remains to be seen, but it’s far from certain he actually gets hurt.
For all the problems with the UK justice system, there’s not half the problems there are in the US.
I worry about witnesses who get reduced sentences on the condition that they give certain evidence. How can that evidence be relied upon? How can you believe it, even if it is true? The Americans seem remarkably relaxed about this.
In Scotland I have seen an accused being offered a plea to give evidence having to sign an affidavit stating what their evidence is but this is very rare and I haven't seen it at all recently. Their statements in that situation either reflect statements made before they became an accused or are consistent with other evidence that can be checked. Even then we are uncomfortable with it.
I think when considering the next election, my theory of management decision-making applies: if there is an option not to make a decision, that is the decision management will take. So barring some black swan event that either forces an election, or causes a sudden recovery in Tory fortunes, that means October 2024 or later.
Will there be a point between October 2024 and January 2025 where it is no longer possible to defer a decision?
Yes. Parliament dissolves by law on 16th December 2024.
But an election campaign with a Christmas break would be a final two fingered salute at the electorate. So, if Rishi wants to avoid that (it requires the political acumen of Winnie the Pooh, which I'm fairly sure Rishi has on his day) that makes E Day December 19... When would he have to call that?
What's best for sunak.xlsx will weigh on the decision a lot more than what's optimal for the tory party and what's best for the country won't even enter into the calculation.
From that perspective Jan '25 is best as it gives him the longest possible time as PM and a short campaign. An electoral campaign being the type of politics he obviously hates and is really shit at.
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Perhaps we should let them fight it out with the losers leaving.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.
Comments
But, if panic ensues, they may not get the choice.
It gives two mechanisms for an early-ish election.
Rishi going early to head off defenestration
OR
If the defenestration has occurred any, even slight, new leader bounce will result in the new leader going to the polls within the first month or two.
https://twitter.com/DickMackintosh/status/1715860935015887224
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
ENISA (the EU cybersecurity agency; the acronym is probably French or something) obviously reads the Knappers Gazette as it warns against AI-enabled interference in elections.
https://www.enisa.europa.eu/news/eu-elections-at-risk-with-rise-of-ai-enabled-information-manipulation
At the time I thought this was an insane sentence. But maybe it is justifiable as a deterrent
If so, we must extend the same protection to the Jews. Put some of these jihad guys in prison for a year or two. And a couple of the students as well
They shoulda got GPT4 to write it
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Its a long time since we have had a January election. Various people saying how crazy that would be - and it would be - but when you are facing down ELE you want something crazy to save you. So play the wild card and see what happens.
If Sunak is still the PM. From what I am reading in the press this weekend, Tory MPs have now fixated on the coming ELE. Many voices saying that it would be ridiculous to change leader again again again. But what is the worst than can happen? ELE? Already priced in, so roll the dice and hope you get snake eyes.
I think the argument against rolling isn't what reaction there would be from the public. It is that there is no obvious alternative. The prospect of the Tory party openly ripping itself apart as the various factions refuse to behave is delicious, but surely even they aren't that crazy? Oh yeah, Lee Anderson is deputy chair, so...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Agency_for_Cybersecurity.
..I have not applied the label “upset” or “shock” to these byelections. For a year now, the opinion polls have been telling us that the government is profoundly unpopular. So it is not so surprising that devastating defeats for the Tories at byelections are becoming routine. They have lost eight since the summer of 2021, four apiece to Labour and the Lib Dems, another echo of what happened to them in the 1990s at the fag end of a long period of Tory rule.
[Sunak’s] approaching the first anniversary of his time at Number 10 having failed. Initially, he presented himself to the country as the fixer who could sort out Britain’s many problems. That strategy has unravelled because those problems are so palpably unfixed. The prime minister’s attempt to relaunch the government and rebrand himself at the Tory conference in Manchester has flopped.
Whenever they get into trouble as terrible as this, the Tories have a traditional remedy. That is to dethrone the leader. While these byelection defeats have thickened their despair and triggered another bout of Tory hair-pulling, there is no serious agitation to topple Mr Sunak. Replacing him would mean installing their fourth leader since the last election. This is surely too preposterous even for the Conservative party. The Tory leader is in a deep, deep hole and they are all stuck down there with him in the inspissated gloom.
I like the September theory. Not one I have heard before but I guess it makes sense.
I don’t think he is evil however. As in “wants to do heinous acts”. I think he is more a brutal, ruthless, amoral, nationalist autocrat. If entire nations have to suffer so that China prospers, so be it
He’s more like an aggressively successful Roman Emperor
Out of energy, out of ideas, out of time.
Out of office.
Will there be a point between October 2024 and January 2025 where it is no longer possible to defer a decision?
Trump attempted to overthrow the US democratic system. Erdogan has done his own manipulations, and does indeed continue with illegal occupations following on from illegal invasions,
It's a challengingly small number of tiers.
Personally, I think October most likely, but with election fever all year in both countries the security risk, such as it is, is just going to have to be dealt with.
All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence
We know some people see offending others as very bad, and some groups would take advantage of that to suggest others are not allowed to offend in certain areas, including de facto blasphemy laws if they can get away with it.
https://twitter.com/DickMackintosh/status/1715860935015887224
One is a democracy that acts within the norms of international politics at a state level. They are not about to launch a nuclear strike on anyone. You may deplore their actions but fundamentally they are part of the international order.
Are you really confident that Hamas wouldn’t nuke the Jews if they had the chance?
That tells you all you need to know about which side you should support.
Now those in favour of him still don't have the balls to admit their mistake, so they're making it all about 'time in office' and 'insurmountable' things. Well, that's not what you said when you insisted he was the man for the job.
There's a year left for SOMEBODY to prove they actually want to provide decent Government. As far as I'm concerned it's anyone's who wants it. Chishti could probably do a better job.
1. Global threats
2. Either (a) potential global threats that are confined to their country; or (b) lesser degree of nastiness but global reach
3. Lesser degree of nastiness largely confirned to their own country
4. Bad people but not a danger to others
5. Everyone else
https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81424328
26% of the population holds negative views about Muslims.
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2022/university-of-birmingham-survey-reveals-islamophobia-is-the-posh-persons-prejudice
A Tory minister was fired because her faith made colleagues uncomfortable.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nusrat-ghani-i-was-sacked-as-a-minister-because-i-was-a-muslim-p38lmvlvg
Netenyahu is a bad person who has failed. He is a block to a peaceful path forward
He is in no way “as malign an influence” as Hamas
He is targeting a 100% increase in his vote. To two votes.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/september2023
As ever with the Government, watch the small print for things they quietly choose to freeze in cash terms (ie cut by the rate of inflation).
I said I was sure he was trying his best, I did not say that his best was any good - indeed, the point was acknowledgement that he has been a real disappointment. You are correct that he has failed on the terms on which he came in, and I have said that many times too as have others - he was given some time to see if he could sort things out, steady things, and the fact is he hasn't achieved that. He was brought in to turn things around and hasn't.
The reason my comment on this occasion focused on the insurmountables was to look at some of the broader issues confronting a government in decline 1 year out, where even the most amazing leader would struggle. That in no way means Sunak escapes censure for his failure over the past year on the things he could impact. Nor does it mean that nothing at all could be done better or differently even now.
What it means is that some really big problems can take time to address, simply for issues like the passing of legislation and to see the effects of that legislation. Some things can be done swiftly, but some things cannot, and 1 year of Sunak failing to turn things around has left them little time to try other things.
That was the point, not some defence of Sunak. That you saw it that way rather shows your lingering and pretty personal anger over his taking over, and wanting people to abase themselves for not trusting in the Truss or something*. And that's ok, but pretending people still won't criticise Sunak is just provably incorrect.
Yes there's things that can be done with 1 year left. But options open with 2 years left will not all be available 1 year left. Why that point triggers you I don't know, it certainly doesn't suggest nothing can be done just because some things cannot be done. I guess things like legislative time don't exist?
*I would point out I for one thought Truss had bought herself time and would not be ousted, and have suggested had her decline not been so precipitous and herself a little more prepared, that they probably would be no worse off.
They really are woefully inept politically aren't they
To which let's add, it screws up everyone's Christmas / New Year
No one who matters to mainstream parties has any money in January: it's literally the worst financial month with a long haul from the early pay before Christmas through to payday, which comes too late legally for the election
But
we come back to your own answer. It is utter desperation and that will be political suicide for the Conservative Party. The media will eviscerate them. So will the electorate.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/383740/antisemitic-incidents-reported-uk-y-on-y/
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Yet another reason not to have a GE in Nov to Jan.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
He is missing the things a successful Prime Minister needs: a compelling vision of where he wants to take the country, the ability to communicate that to the country and the team to help him fulfil it. This might just about pass in easy times with a poorer opposition, but in admittedly challenging times he just doesn't cut it.
And he won't have called it already because Sunak is both frit and useless at politics. Wait and see, keep watching those economy metrics improving a few basis points a month, hope.
So, it's 12 months from now and we need to know what PM Rishi will do. Call an orthodox election knowing you are very likely to leave the party utterly smashed?
Or play the only wildcard you have left - timing. A Christmas election was seen as madness in 2019, yet Boris! used it as part of the campaign. His Love Actually election broadcast was - and still is - utterly brilliant.
Now we have the start of campaigning the week before Christmas. Play lots of "Last Christmas before Labour ruin it" lines. Then into the grey and bleak January - "don't let labour make every month feel like January" etc
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
Truss's campaign was deeply confused by being the Boris loyalist candidate saying he should not have gone, whilst advocating a big change economically from what he had done (the official Borisian line we're supposed to swallow is he had no control over his Chancellor and totally would have done differently). But her background as a minister was hardly appalling compared to some and her campaigning talk was standard please the members stuff. I remember saying I didn't really understand why some people reacted against her so strongly. Of course, she backed that up a bit once in office.
Sunak's campaign was lacklustre and he simply was unable to connect with the Members, and he looked out of his depth, which was a bit of a surprise given at least presentationally he had done pretty well as Chancellor. His time as PM has kind of reinforced that, as he has moments of understated delivery, interspersed with a lack of urgency on most matters and sporadic and unconvincing efforts to please the base which are ineffective in any case.
I know it's easy to say both were just obviously awful, but they were both high flyers and reasonably competent seeming options. Looking at alternatives you had some inexperienced figures setting out their stall for future contests, a couple of older hands who had missed their chances already, and a few others of equivalent experience.
It's not obvious that there were significantly better options than the pair of them, indeed, they could have come up with worse!
That may be part of the point of the criticism of course, but two high ranking Cabinet Members who had not really had any major scandals or issues hanging around? They weren't that bad seeming.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
It's a peculiar claim when there were other Muslim ministers in place at the time, and she herself was reappointed to a ministerial position a few months later.
She can hold a big sword well though!
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
Especially given his past assertions about "truth":
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2018/aug/20/truth-rudy-giuliani-legal-adviser-trump
Could the Lords stop it? Would the King sign it off?
I don't know, the level of honour in this Government suggests to me that they just might try!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/shock-rage-increasing-unease-uks-jewish-community-wrestles-with-response-to-war
Several of the people charged here are lawyers apparently charged with being lawyers, in the hope that they agree to take a deal to testify against their own clients.
I’ve heard similar rumours about Giuliani, but from the angle that he’s the second target of the prosecutors and therefore won’t be offered a deal.
IIRC it’s about 90% of cases that never reach a trial, thanks to plea-bargaining that gives someone the choice between six months and 60 years, depending on whether they plead guilty or are found guilty. That just doesn’t seem particulalry fair to me.
Most worrying, from the political point of view, is that none of this appears to be damaging Trump’s ratings, and in fact has seen an increase in black support *as a result of* his legal issues, something with which that community has always protested. Whether or not that changes as the cases progress (and yes, one member of this board has one poll from a few months ago) remains to be seen, but it’s far from certain he actually gets hurt.
For all the problems with the UK justice system, there’s not half the problems there are in the US.
It is deeply unethical and remorseless, but is rational in a way that Putin is not. Russia is attempting to turn the clock back to a hegemonic period, China is anticipating a future hegemony. 1. Yes, as do black children. All minorities do this.
2 and 3. No and no, and I think the peak of antisemitism on display amongst a minority of those who support the Palestinian struggle should be a real wake up call for those of us who are instinctively more pro-Palestinian. It has shocked me and has forced me to reconsider my position. Yes but if you want to call for a one state secular solution, call for that. Don’t write something that is plausibly genocidal.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Not a lot, but some.
Questioning Israel's right to exist does have those overtones. Do you think overtones are enough to secure a prosecution?
In Scotland I have seen an accused being offered a plea to give evidence having to sign an affidavit stating what their evidence is but this is very rare and I haven't seen it at all recently. Their statements in that situation either reflect statements made before they became an accused or are consistent with other evidence that can be checked. Even then we are uncomfortable with it.
From that perspective Jan '25 is best as it gives him the longest possible time as PM and a short campaign. An electoral campaign being the type of politics he obviously hates and is really shit at.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.