"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
Yeah but it's two hard working cops getting sacked by some sport scroungers playing identity politics. And they probably do smoke weed, they look the sort nudge nudge wink wink
Well, if they smoke weed, that might explain why they were so stupid as to stop the car in the first place.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
Can you explain to me how Arabs or Palestinians living in Israel are in an apartheid regime? They have the same rights as Jews.
Compare and contrast with Jews who are brave enough to live in majority Muslim countries.
Again, I am going to defer to people whose job it is to define these things:
Jesus Christ - this is why people get so annoyed by "will you condemn Hamas" or "but you didn't condemn Hamas" because, if you support Palestinian people in any way, when you do no one looks at it or doesn't believe you anyway.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
A 2 state solution could.be peaceful if Hamas didn't believe that Israel and Jews in general don't deserve to exist. How can you negotiate with that?
How can you negotiate with Netanyahu and his government, people who also do not want a 2 state solution and call Palestinians "human animals" that need to be "dealt with". Hamas was elected in '06, with a plurality not a majority, and an election hasn't been held since. The PLO still exist, the Palestinian people are still there, the West Bank Palestinians exist. There are other people to negotiate with. If Israel talked to them and a peace deal was drawn up and it went to the Palestinian people to vote for or against it - you can do all that without Hamas. That's how we had to do it in NI - talk via an intermediary, then to the moderates (some of whom talk to the hardliners) and work on it, and then talk face to face. Maybe some people on both sides get pardons or punished.
But to do all that in a realistically sustainable manner doesn't look too different from a truth and reconciliation process anyway - just that the solution is a 2 state solution rather than my suggested 1 state solution. I still think a 2 state solution wouldn't work because, as always, a sticking point will be Palestinian right to return - which can only be solved with a single secular multiethnic state.
How about an Ottoman solution? An international agreement to give Turkey control over the whole area.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
A 2 state solution could.be peaceful if Hamas didn't believe that Israel and Jews in general don't deserve to exist. How can you negotiate with that?
How can you negotiate with Netanyahu and his government, people who also do not want a 2 state solution and call Palestinians "human animals" that need to be "dealt with". Hamas was elected in '06, with a plurality not a majority, and an election hasn't been held since. The PLO still exist, the Palestinian people are still there, the West Bank Palestinians exist. There are other people to negotiate with. If Israel talked to them and a peace deal was drawn up and it went to the Palestinian people to vote for or against it - you can do all that without Hamas. That's how we had to do it in NI - talk via an intermediary, then to the moderates (some of whom talk to the hardliners) and work on it, and then talk face to face. Maybe some people on both sides get pardons or punished.
But to do all that in a realistically sustainable manner doesn't look too different from a truth and reconciliation process anyway - just that the solution is a 2 state solution rather than my suggested 1 state solution. I still think a 2 state solution wouldn't work because, as always, a sticking point will be Palestinian right to return - which can only be solved with a single secular multiethnic state.
How about an Ottoman solution? An international agreement to give Turkey control over the whole area.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
They'll resign before sentencing, be rehired by Kent police, beat up three non-white teenagers and then say it's all the fault of the judge for letting them off.
Yes, I'm being flippant. I would also like to think I'm wrong, but past form is not encouraging.
As a certain a point it’s not flippant. Mostly when it’s actually happened several times.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
Can you explain to me how Arabs or Palestinians living in Israel are in an apartheid regime? They have the same rights as Jews.
Compare and contrast with Jews who are brave enough to live in majority Muslim countries.
Again, I am going to defer to people whose job it is to define these things:
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
Premier League demands Everton get 12 point deduction for one breach of FFP. Man City have 115 open FFP cases.
Premier League demands 12-point deduction as maximum punishment if Everton are found guilty of breaching financial rules. Important to note that final decision will be made by an independent commission. Everton maintain they have complied with the rules https://x.com/JPercyTelegraph/status/1717150376032371133?s=20
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
The Gazan Health Ministry claimed that the IDF had bombed the hospital. 500 dead. Then 300 dead. Then who cares the Israelis did it dead. The ceiling of the operating theatre collapsing as the building imploded.
And then the following morning we all see that it was all bullshit.
You want to give credibility to that?
I will take the source that most people say has been the most reliable most of the time in the past. If, as they produce more data, they stop being the most reliable source I will stop taking them credibly. Why is that outrageous?
Also, we still don't know how many died in the hospital! For all we know the Gazan Health Ministry could yet be proved right by civilian deaths! We also still have no real conclusion of who is responsible for the bombing or the extent of the damage. US intelligence seem to be saying between "100-300" with big caveats, which means could be less, could be more. If it's much more than 300, it wouldn't be too out of line with the original Gazan estimate.
We know that the IDF didn't bomb it. We know that the building did not collapse. Which makes the quotes from medics claiming that it did to be a fabrication.
I am not saying that everything the Gazan Ministry of Hamas says is a lie. But we know that they do lie. So we can't just verbatim accept everything they say.
We now know the IDF did not bomb the hospital but it was "bombed" by someone. I do not think we can blame the Health Ministry for jumping to the wrong conclusion, any more than we condemn those who said it was a Hamas missile, since the current belief is Palestinian Islamic Jihad was responsible. But in any case, that is entirely separate from the question of how many died.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
For the record I agree with you. All the territory that is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to form a single state in which all have full political rights. Add in also a constitution that heavily protects minority and individual rights as well as the religious rights of Jews and which would require a degree of cross community consensus to be changed.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
Blimey - multiple Labour MPs telling me that a couple of shadow cabinet members are considering resigning over Keir Starmer’s handling of the Gaza situation
I listened to the LBC interview when Starmer was at peak Israel shall we call it. He's rowed back from that but that morning it was as if @BartholomewRoberts himself was on the radio.
Um, we don't actually know who Barty is IRL, Could it be...
Here is Mike Johnson railing against Roe v. Wade, arguing that if women were forced to give birth to more “able-bodied workers,” Republicans wouldn’t try to cut Social Security and Medicare https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1717177186086465983
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
Actually, the latest New York Times investigation casts doubt on the Israeli story that it was a Gazan missile. Turns out it might have been a missile from Israel's Iron Dome that went astray. IIRC
(there may have been further developments still)
I doubt we will ever know. It is an intense urban war zone where both sides are hurling vast amounts of ordnance at each other, could have been either side. Whoever is responsible, I doubt it was deliberate. Too much of an obvious own goal
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
The question is why have the media not called out the lying? It would help given many will be inclined to take their figures as truth.
BBC Verify suggesting it was a Gazan rocket is equivalent to the tabloid apology on page 24.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
For the record I agree with you. All the territory that is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to form a single state in which all have full political rights. Add in also a constitution that heavily protects minority and individual rights as well as the religious rights of Jews and which would require a degree of cross community consensus to be changed.
Wow, it’s so simple, we can use this for Russia/Ukraine too. We know 100% that there is no way Russia and Hamas won’t screw the other side brutally. It’s flawless, no need even to suggest how and by who this gets policed and judged.
Hey kids, you remember that violent long standing murderous relationship in the Middle East, well it turned out you just needed a constitution to tell people not to be mean.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers, killer rapists and premeditated child murderers.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term as it always sets the Daily Mail comments section off
Off topic, but of great interest to some of you, the distribution of pineapple pizza in the US: "So far, this analysis has ignored the proverbial pie in the ointment: pineapple. If we counted Hawaiian as a pizza style, rather than a topping — which would be wrong on so many levels — it would emerge as the dominant regional style in much of the Greater Northwest, from the Dakotas to the Pacific Coast, as well as a few Southern states.
Despite being invented in Canada by a bespectacled Greek immigrant living just across Lake St. Clair from Detroit, Hawaiian pizza actually peaks in popularity in the U.S. in its namesake state, the erstwhile Sandwich Islands. Reviewers there are more likely to name-drop pineapple than in any mainland state — though, like so much in Hawaii, that could be an unwanted outside imposition. We sometimes waded through more than a dozen tourist opinions before hearing from the first local in Yelp reviews." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/01/pizza-favorite-styles-chicago/ (Links omitted.)
If there is a political correlation in that distribution, it is not evident to me.
Curiously, the supermarkets here seldom carry pineapple pizza in their frozen pizza sections. (Perhaps it doesn't freeze well?
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
The UK’s ‘official’ labour data is becoming a nonsense ... [big snip] ... The data crisis is deeply problematic for economic policy. The ONS cannot currently tell us with any certainty whether the labour market is loosening or tightening, so the Bank of England will have more difficulty than usual in setting interest rates. It cannot tell us whether the UK really has been an international outlier after the pandemic in seeing a sharp rise in the number of sick people not seeking work, potentially highlighting the damaging economic effects of high NHS waiting lists. It cannot provide any guidance on whether tax changes have caused a collapse in the self-employed.
Official employment statistics are based on a survey whose response rate is barely in double figures (never mind that the operational definition of unemployed is fairly dubious to start with).
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
Well, as you say, compared with other offences it is a bit steep but the judge averred that he would always be dangerous, so there's that. As to what time he will serve before parole, who knows?
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
I was going to like as I agreed with your post, but then I read the blackmail and threats bit to children and felt more uncomfortable about agreeing with you.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
I find it hard to believe that Boris has any religious beliefs.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
Yes it does, as far as the Roman Catholics are concerned if you are baptised Catholic you are always Catholic.
The Vatican also much prefers Roman Catholics who sin (always room for confession) than saintly atheists in terms of keeping their numbers up, the fact Boris married Carrie in Westminster Cathedral not a registry office also shows he at least considers himself RC.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
I was going to like as I agreed with your post, but then I read the blackmail and threats bit to children and felt more uncomfortable about agreeing with you.
It’s the inconsistency I object to as much as anything. It makes no sense compared to some of the sentences handed down in the Asian grooming scandals - where girls were doused in petrol and threatened with being burned alive etc
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
For the record I agree with you. All the territory that is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to form a single state in which all have full political rights. Add in also a constitution that heavily protects minority and individual rights as well as the religious rights of Jews and which would require a degree of cross community consensus to be changed.
How would you protect Israelis in a majority-Palestinian state, when a load of them have just gone and killed a load of Jews (and other nationalities as well...) ?
A 'constitution' is only good if everyone follows it. How do you get Hamas - whose avowed aim is essentially to kill all Jews, and which is supported by large numbers of Palestinians - to suddenly decide to love their Jewish neighbours?
Your idea would lead to a bloodbath akin to the Rwandan genocide. If you cannot see that, then you are a fool. If you do see it and still want it, then you are borderline evil.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
The question is why have the media not called out the lying? It would help given many will be inclined to take their figures as truth.
BBC Verify suggesting it was a Gazan rocket is equivalent to the tabloid apology on page 24.
Is a mistake necessarily a lie? If it is, then call out equally those who said at first it was a Hamas rocket rather than PIJ.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
The question is why have the media not called out the lying? It would help given many will be inclined to take their figures as truth.
BBC Verify suggesting it was a Gazan rocket is equivalent to the tabloid apology on page 24.
Is a mistake necessarily a lie? If it is, then call out equally those who said at first it was a Hamas rocket rather than PIJ.
500 deaths? It is very hard to see how that wasn't a lie. From the following morning forensic people were looking at the scene and convinced it was implausible.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
The judge did say that the offender being a police officer was an aggravating factor. I also think that the sheer scale of the offending had to be taken into consideration. He had about 200 victims.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
I find it hard to believe that Boris has any religious beliefs.
If he does, it's not clear that he lets them get in the way of his behaviour.
He strikes me more as a classical Greek "turn yourself into a swan to impress the babes" kinda guy.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
I find it hard to believe that Boris has any religious beliefs.
If he does, it's not clear that he lets them get in the way of his behaviour.
He strikes me more as a classical Greek "turn yourself into a swan to impress the babes" kinda guy.
I'm imagine he believes in the divine right of kings aka him.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
I like your thinking, of seeing Chancellors as the simplifiers and the complicators.
The UK’s ‘official’ labour data is becoming a nonsense ... [big snip] ... The data crisis is deeply problematic for economic policy. The ONS cannot currently tell us with any certainty whether the labour market is loosening or tightening, so the Bank of England will have more difficulty than usual in setting interest rates. It cannot tell us whether the UK really has been an international outlier after the pandemic in seeing a sharp rise in the number of sick people not seeking work, potentially highlighting the damaging economic effects of high NHS waiting lists. It cannot provide any guidance on whether tax changes have caused a collapse in the self-employed.
Official employment statistics are based on a survey whose response rate is barely in double figures (never mind that the operational definition of unemployed is fairly dubious to start with).
Personal anecdote alert - a couple of people I know who run companies have participated and said that they thought the result would be rubbish.
This was because the categorisation of employment and other details didn’t fit the facts.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
Yes it does, as far as the Roman Catholics are concerned if you are baptised Catholic you are always Catholic.
The Vatican also much prefers Roman Catholics who sin (always room for confession) than saintly atheists in terms of keeping their numbers up, the fact Boris married Carrie in Westminster Cathedral not a registry office also shows he at least considers himself RC.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
I find it hard to believe that Boris has any religious beliefs.
If he does, it's not clear that he lets them get in the way of his behaviour.
He strikes me more as a classical Greek "turn yourself into a swan to impress the babes" kinda guy.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
The sentences you mention are woefully low for such serious offences.
Being a police officer, if the victims were aware of this, is however a massively aggravating factor in this particular case. The police need to be squeaky clean, and seen as being squeaky clean.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
The sentences you mention are woefully low for such serious offences.
Being a police officer, if the victims were aware of this, is however a massively aggravating factor in this particular case. The police need to be squeaky clean, and seen as being squeaky clean.
i'm not gonna die on a hill for this pervert copper. I just wish our courts were more clearly consistent
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
The sentences you mention are woefully low for such serious offences.
Being a police officer, if the victims were aware of this, is however a massively aggravating factor in this particular case. The police need to be squeaky clean, and seen as being squeaky clean.
Well he was posing as a boy, so they would not have known, afaict.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
For the record I agree with you. All the territory that is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to form a single state in which all have full political rights. Add in also a constitution that heavily protects minority and individual rights as well as the religious rights of Jews and which would require a degree of cross community consensus to be changed.
How would you protect Israelis in a majority-Palestinian state, when a load of them have just gone and killed a load of Jews (and other nationalities as well...) ?
A 'constitution' is only good if everyone follows it. How do you get Hamas - whose avowed aim is essentially to kill all Jews, and which is supported by large numbers of Palestinians - to suddenly decide to love their Jewish neighbours?
Your idea would lead to a bloodbath akin to the Rwandan genocide. If you cannot see that, then you are a fool. If you do see it and still want it, then you are borderline evil.
Hamas are a massive blocker to any form of peace.
“constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions”
Attempting to enforce constitutionality, rather than a polity coming together around a constitution that is commonly agreed upon, doesn’t work.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
And one that's not open to us outside of the EU.
We can set our own CT last time I checked.
Much of the attraction of Ireland's low tax rate to overseas investors is its being part of the EU. I would have thought that point fairly obvious.
It would be obvious if it made sense. The attraction of Ireland's low tax rate is that it's low. The attraction of Ireland as a whole package may be enhanced by its membership of the EU for some companies, but if that were the case it wouldn't undermine the argument for cutting CT here. If anything it would strengthen that argument, and dictate that we should drive it still lower to offset the supposed demerits of being outside the EU.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
I mean, people questioned me about sourcing when I quoted numbers - I was just using the UN who use the GHM. And they seem to be used because in the past they have not been nonsense and, indeed, have been the most accurate.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Your response reminds me of the drunk looking for their keys underneath the lamppost.
Netherlands also about to go below England on net run rate.
74/5 chasing 400.
86/8. Worst performance of the tournament?
Aus is about to get a mahoosive NRR boost out of this.
It strikes me that if you really want to up your NRR batting 1st is the way to go. If you're chasing - even as quickly then you're adding fewer runs and fewer overs to the aggregate total so it's less of an overall effect.
Translation: they are all Boeing 707s painted gray and white with different bumps here and there
All RC-135 variants are based on the C-135 which was whelped from the 386-80 NOT THE 707. Totally different aircraft. 132" dia, fuselage vs 148" for a start.
The E-3 is based on the 707 as are the Israeli, Spanish and assorted other tanker conversions; those are definitely not KC-135 tankers.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Your response reminds me of the drunk looking for their keys underneath the lamppost.
I don't understand why it is somehow questionable to use the same source other reputable organisations use. It seems to be the case the GHM are historically the most reliable source for Palestinian deaths. If they no longer are, I am willing to accept that, but then want to know what sources people will accept and why (especially considering that, from my understanding, papers and the UN are still going to use the GHM numbers)
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Coincidentally I divide political commentators into two broad categories, simplifiers and complicators. In general simplifiers just say if they liked the politician, whereas complicators make up some criteria to get to the same end.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
In general I think it is a good thing for judges to have discretion to vary sentences for aggravating and mitigating factors.
So, all other things being equal, I'd expect rape to have a higher sentence than online abuse. But if there are several aggregating factors in one case, and not another, then I'd also expect some overlap so that some convictions of online abuse would merit a higher sentence than some convictions for rape.
Obviously we could argue about the details over aggravating factors in each case. But I think the inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
I mean, people questioned me about sourcing when I quoted numbers - I was just using the UN who use the GHM. And they seem to be used because in the past they have not been nonsense and, indeed, have been the most accurate.
They've always been nonsense. It's fundamentally the same problem as Russian/Chinese COVID death statistics - you're dealing with people who are entirely happy to just make these things up if they think it'll help them in any way.
Anyway, it's a meaningless number to quote, because it doesn't distinguish between actual civilians and Hamas operatives.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Yes, simplification vs. complication is a good yardstick to judge a Chancellor - or any politician really.
Though it does remind me of a Mrs. Malaprop quote: 'Many men have complicated me on that carpet' - must just be my sick mind.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
The sentences you mention are woefully low for such serious offences.
Being a police officer, if the victims were aware of this, is however a massively aggravating factor in this particular case. The police need to be squeaky clean, and seen as being squeaky clean.
i'm not gonna die on a hill for this pervert copper. I just wish our courts were more clearly consistent
200 is a HUGE number of victims even if none was individually raped.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
We are frequently told that 1,400 Israelis were slaughtered in the atrocity carried out by Hamas on October 7. Nobody (including me) seems to dispute this number. Civilians and soldiers aren't separated out, though it would seem that the vast majority were civilians.
In this context, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be curious about how many have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, ideally separated out into combatants (Hamas) and non-combatants (civilians), although I recognise that this would probably be impossible. For those who don't believe the figures coming from Hamas itself, which I agree are not reliable, where should we look? Or should we just guess? Or doesn't it matter?
Blimey - multiple Labour MPs telling me that a couple of shadow cabinet members are considering resigning over Keir Starmer’s handling of the Gaza situation
I listened to the LBC interview when Starmer was at peak Israel shall we call it. He's rowed back from that but that morning it was as if @BartholomewRoberts himself was on the radio.
Um, we don't actually know who Barty is IRL, Could it be...
QTWAIHNAYFKM
(Question To Which Answer Is Hell No! Are You Frigging Kidding Me?)
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
I mean, people questioned me about sourcing when I quoted numbers - I was just using the UN who use the GHM. And they seem to be used because in the past they have not been nonsense and, indeed, have been the most accurate.
They've always been nonsense. It's fundamentally the same problem as Russian/Chinese COVID death statistics - you're dealing with people who are entirely happy to just make these things up if they think it'll help them in any way.
Anyway, it's a meaningless number to quote, because it doesn't distinguish between actual civilians and Hamas operatives.
Okay, so your position is that it has never been a good source? So why did the UN and basically all international journalists use them over other sources?
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Coincidentally I divide political commentators into two broad categories, simplifiers and complicators. In general simplifiers just say if they liked the politician, whereas complicators make up some criteria to get to the same end.
Sure: there's bound to be an element of that.
But in general, I think that Chancellors should strive to make things simpler, and should try and minimize the micromanagement.
Reducing the number or bands of income tax or VAT= good Targeted tax breaks to make people go to restaurants = bad
And I think this somewhat transcends political boundaries. Yes, Clarke and Howe were both Conservatives. But Darling was not. Barber was a massive complicator and a Conservative.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
Sadly it doesn't beggar belief at all. We've already seen other people query the Israeli death toll, implying many of the deaths were due to friendly fire, so nothing to do with Hamas attacking Israel in the first place. We are only a small step away from people claiming that there were Israeli "crisis actors" and then that whole event is merely a "false flag".
If nothing else this terrible tragedy has revealed how anti-Semitism still flourishes in Western society.
We are frequently told that 1,400 Israelis were slaughtered in the atrocity carried out by Hamas on October 7. Nobody (including me) seems to dispute this number. Civilians and soldiers aren't separated out, though it would seem that the vast majority were civilians.
In this context, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be curious about how many have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, ideally separated out into combatants (Hamas) and non-combatants (civilians), although I recognise that this would probably be impossible. For those who don't believe the figures coming from Hamas itself, which I agree are not reliable, where should we look? Or should we just guess? Or doesn't it matter?
It does matter and I understand why people would want figures. I don't know whether OSINT people are trying to do this but there is no point believing figures from people who have no regard for the truth.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
In general I think it is a good thing for judges to have discretion to vary sentences for aggravating and mitigating factors.
So, all other things being equal, I'd expect rape to have a higher sentence than online abuse. But if there are several aggregating factors in one case, and not another, then I'd also expect some overlap so that some convictions of online abuse would merit a higher sentence than some convictions for rape.
Obviously we could argue about the details over aggravating factors in each case. But I think the inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
Sentencing is now subject to massive statutory regulation (far too much IMHO) and an infinity of guidance. Some it it is extremely complex. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) exists to put wrongs right, and does. Counsel are not slow to book a trip to London for this purpose if they have a case.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
Any predictions for Reeves?
Well, if she removes the ridiculous wrinkles in marginal tax rates (at both the low end due to the removal of benefits) and at the high (due to NI and the 45% rate), she will be a simplifier.
And while we all (rightly) moan about the higher one here, the lower end one is the more important, because it directly disincentivizes people from entering the workforce.
Blimey - multiple Labour MPs telling me that a couple of shadow cabinet members are considering resigning over Keir Starmer’s handling of the Gaza situation
I listened to the LBC interview when Starmer was at peak Israel shall we call it. He's rowed back from that but that morning it was as if @BartholomewRoberts himself was on the radio.
Um, we don't actually know who Barty is IRL, Could it be...
QTWAIHNAYFKM
(Question To Which Answer Is Hell No! Are You Frigging Kidding Me?)
People can be very gloomy about this country, particularly when compared to other civilised places. Here are a couple of reasons to be cheerful - league tables we're lucky to be at the bottom of:
Civilians killed by police/10 million inhabitants (2019) US – 33.5 Canada – 9.8 Australia – 8.5 Netherlands – 2.3 New Zealand – 2.0 Germany – 1.3 England and Wales - 0.5
Road deaths/billion kilometers US – 8.3 New Zealand – 7.2 Australia – 5.2 Canada – 5.1 Netherlands – 4.7 Germany – 4.2 England and Wales – 3.8
Netherlands also about to go below England on net run rate.
74/5 chasing 400.
86/8. Worst performance of the tournament?
Aus is about to get a mahoosive NRR boost out of this.
It strikes me that if you really want to up your NRR batting 1st is the way to go. If you're chasing - even as quickly then you're adding fewer runs and fewer overs to the aggregate total so it's less of an overall effect.
90ao, for a winning margin of 309 runs!
Agreed on the NRR, it’s been rather weird to see teams winning the toss elect to field in the d/n matches of this tournament.
Talking of which, it’s England v SL tomorrow, an absolute must-win for both sides. Hopefully I’ll get to watch most of it.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
In general I think it is a good thing for judges to have discretion to vary sentences for aggravating and mitigating factors.
So, all other things being equal, I'd expect rape to have a higher sentence than online abuse. But if there are several aggregating factors in one case, and not another, then I'd also expect some overlap so that some convictions of online abuse would merit a higher sentence than some convictions for rape.
Obviously we could argue about the details over aggravating factors in each case. But I think the inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
I'm sorry, I just completely disagree
The details of the Huddersfield grooming case make it clear it was way worse than anything this pervert copper did. To my mind
"By the time she was 15, the first victim had been raped by 300 men.
The defendants were convicted of nine counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault after the sixth trial to come from the Tendersea inquiry.
Ali, 34, of Huddersfield, was jailed for eight years after being found guilty of two offences of rape against one victim.
Riaz, 43, also of Huddersfield, was sentenced to 15 years after being found guilty of rape and two indecent assaults against one girl and rape against the other.
Banaras Hussain, 39, of Shipley, was jailed for nine and a half years after being found guilty of raping one of the schoolgirls.
Abdul Majid, 36, of Huddersfield, was sentenced to 11 years after being found guilty of raping one victim twice.
A fifth, 30 and also from Huddersfield, was jailed for four years for raping one of the girls. The sixth was Hussain, who could not be named at the time."
So one guy got four years - FOUR YEARS - for actual underage rape, of a 13 year old, in a massive campaign of gang rape and trafficking where one girl was raped by 300 men. Compare and contrast
People can be very gloomy about this country, particularly when compared to other civilised places. Here are a couple of reasons to be cheerful - league tables we're lucky to be at the bottom of:
Civilians killed by police/10 million inhabitants (2019) US – 33.5 Canada – 9.8 Australia – 8.5 Netherlands – 2.3 New Zealand – 2.0 Germany – 1.3 England and Wales - 0.5
Road deaths/billion kilometers US – 8.3 New Zealand – 7.2 Australia – 5.2 Canada – 5.1 Netherlands – 4.7 Germany – 4.2 England and Wales – 3.8
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
People can be very gloomy about this country, particularly when compared to other civilised places. Here are a couple of reasons to be cheerful - league tables we're lucky to be at the bottom of:
Civilians killed by police/10 million inhabitants (2019) US – 33.5 Canada – 9.8 Australia – 8.5 Netherlands – 2.3 New Zealand – 2.0 Germany – 1.3 England and Wales - 0.5
Road deaths/billion kilometers US – 8.3 New Zealand – 7.2 Australia – 5.2 Canada – 5.1 Netherlands – 4.7 Germany – 4.2 England and Wales – 3.8
As an aside, for New Zealand, that means that one person was killed by police in 2019. It could well have been zero in 2020, 2021 and 2022!
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
Any predictions for Reeves?
Simple
Vote Tory? Pay more tax...
You think your tax will go down under Labour?
No, I think your taxes will go up under Labour
Not just that, they'll go up more under Labour than under a continuing Conservative government. In both cases, arithmetic will demand it.
But Reeves won't have to pretend that taxes are flat or falling to anything like the same degree. And a lot of the complexities we all seem to hate have come about to bring in more revenue without increasing anything at headline level.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
FWIW it seems to me that the division between simplifiers and complicators runs through the entire human race; it's a category like introverts and extroverts, FOMOs and JOMOs, leaders and followers, meeting lovers and meeting avoiders and so on.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Just because he went through the ritual it doesn't make Boris a Catholic or C of E. As people have pointed out he would pretend to be whatever was convenient. On the list of Atheist party leaders you can also add Kinnock, although I suspect there are many more who sensibly just keep quiet about it. I don't care, but some apparently do so why raise it unless it becomes an issue. I am rather shocked regarding the post that people would care if a leader were Jewish, but it appears to be true. I invariably only find out that a politician is Jewish because there has been some issue raised like the 'pigs might fly' issue re Howard and Letwin. I had no idea they were Jewish until that arose. I don't care they are.
Yes it does, as far as the Roman Catholics are concerned if you are baptised Catholic you are always Catholic.
The Vatican also much prefers Roman Catholics who sin (always room for confession) than saintly atheists in terms of keeping their numbers up, the fact Boris married Carrie in Westminster Cathedral not a registry office also shows he at least considers himself RC.
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
Any predictions for Reeves?
Well, if she removes the ridiculous wrinkles in marginal tax rates (at both the low end due to the removal of benefits) and at the high (due to NI and the 45% rate), she will be a simplifier.
And while we all (rightly) moan about the higher one here, the lower end one is the more important, because it directly disincentivizes people from entering the workforce.
The problem is that Labour chancellors rarely act in a way that it not ideological. they may/will do something about the people at the bottom but may make it worse for the people at the top (eg put it back to 50%) regardless as to whether it brings in any money.
What made Brown a complicator wasn't his tinkering with income taxes but the introduction of lots of other taxes. He essentially killed off final salary pensions in the 1990's when he introduced changes. Income tax and NI are, for most people, simple taxes and adding/removing bands doesn't change the overall complexity of the tax system by much. The same goes for VAT.
the problem is the additional duties, levies and exceptions. the exceptions are the worst part overall and most were put in for good reason (to encourage the right behaviour) but they are what add to the complexity.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
In general I think it is a good thing for judges to have discretion to vary sentences for aggravating and mitigating factors.
So, all other things being equal, I'd expect rape to have a higher sentence than online abuse. But if there are several aggregating factors in one case, and not another, then I'd also expect some overlap so that some convictions of online abuse would merit a higher sentence than some convictions for rape.
Obviously we could argue about the details over aggravating factors in each case. But I think the inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
Sentencing is now subject to massive statutory regulation (far too much IMHO) and an infinity of guidance. Some it it is extremely complex. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) exists to put wrongs right, and does. Counsel are not slow to book a trip to London for this purpose if they have a case.
Yes, discretion was the wrong word to use because it's all set down in sentencing guidelines.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
I mean, people questioned me about sourcing when I quoted numbers - I was just using the UN who use the GHM. And they seem to be used because in the past they have not been nonsense and, indeed, have been the most accurate.
They've always been nonsense. It's fundamentally the same problem as Russian/Chinese COVID death statistics - you're dealing with people who are entirely happy to just make these things up if they think it'll help them in any way.
Anyway, it's a meaningless number to quote, because it doesn't distinguish between actual civilians and Hamas operatives.
Okay, so your position is that it has never been a good source? So why did the UN and basically all international journalists use them over other sources?
Blimey - multiple Labour MPs telling me that a couple of shadow cabinet members are considering resigning over Keir Starmer’s handling of the Gaza situation
I listened to the LBC interview when Starmer was at peak Israel shall we call it. He's rowed back from that but that morning it was as if @BartholomewRoberts himself was on the radio.
Um, we don't actually know who Barty is IRL, Could it be...
QTWAIHNAYFKM
(Question To Which Answer Is Hell No! Are You Frigging Kidding Me?)
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
No Boris was baptised Roman Catholic, switched to C of E and having married Carrie at Westminster cathedral is now back Catholic again
Very hard to know if this signals he is a man who thinks deeply about theological issues and grapples on a daily basis with complex ecumenical matters, or if it indicates he's a massive bullsh1tter who just does whatever is convenient in order to book a cathedral.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
It isn't life, it is 12 years minimum.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers etc.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term
This won’t make me popular, but I still think 12 years minimum is pretty harsh
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
Given there was no actual physical rape you may have a point but no government wanting to be re elected is going to lower the minimum sentence for sexual predators on underage girls, even if only online
Then how come actual rapists of girls under 16 get lesser sentences?! This seems quite inconsistent
The extent and persistence of his offending; the number of lives affected; the fact that he was a police officer - all were likely factors in the sentencing. Which seems fair enough to me, FWIW.
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online. The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail. The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
Fair enough
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
Here's what I mean by inconsistent. From your link:
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
In general I think it is a good thing for judges to have discretion to vary sentences for aggravating and mitigating factors.
So, all other things being equal, I'd expect rape to have a higher sentence than online abuse. But if there are several aggregating factors in one case, and not another, then I'd also expect some overlap so that some convictions of online abuse would merit a higher sentence than some convictions for rape.
Obviously we could argue about the details over aggravating factors in each case. But I think the inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
I'm sorry, I just completely disagree
The details of the Huddersfield grooming case make it clear it was way worse than anything this pervert copper did. To my mind
"By the time she was 15, the first victim had been raped by 300 men.
The defendants were convicted of nine counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault after the sixth trial to come from the Tendersea inquiry.
Ali, 34, of Huddersfield, was jailed for eight years after being found guilty of two offences of rape against one victim.
Riaz, 43, also of Huddersfield, was sentenced to 15 years after being found guilty of rape and two indecent assaults against one girl and rape against the other.
Banaras Hussain, 39, of Shipley, was jailed for nine and a half years after being found guilty of raping one of the schoolgirls.
Abdul Majid, 36, of Huddersfield, was sentenced to 11 years after being found guilty of raping one victim twice.
A fifth, 30 and also from Huddersfield, was jailed for four years for raping one of the girls. The sixth was Hussain, who could not be named at the time."
So one guy got four years - FOUR YEARS - for actual underage rape, of a 13 year old, in a massive campaign of gang rape and trafficking where one girl was raped by 300 men. Compare and contrast
I agree that four years is absurdly lenient for raping a child, but you can only sentence someone for what they've been convicted, and that person wasn't convicted of raping 300 children.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
I mean, people questioned me about sourcing when I quoted numbers - I was just using the UN who use the GHM. And they seem to be used because in the past they have not been nonsense and, indeed, have been the most accurate.
They've always been nonsense. It's fundamentally the same problem as Russian/Chinese COVID death statistics - you're dealing with people who are entirely happy to just make these things up if they think it'll help them in any way.
Anyway, it's a meaningless number to quote, because it doesn't distinguish between actual civilians and Hamas operatives.
Okay, so your position is that it has never been a good source? So why did the UN and basically all international journalists use them over other sources?
On topic, I think Hunt has been a poor Chancellor, who has done little to improve the finances of the UK.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
Lawson was a simplifier too.
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
Any predictions for Reeves?
Simple
Vote Tory? Pay more tax...
You think your tax will go down under Labour?
No, I think your taxes will go up under Labour
Not just that, they'll go up more under Labour than under a continuing Conservative government. In both cases, arithmetic will demand it.
But Reeves won't have to pretend that taxes are flat or falling to anything like the same degree. And a lot of the complexities we all seem to hate have come about to bring in more revenue without increasing anything at headline level.
I'd say increasing the basic rate of income tax has become politically impossible.
We don't need to debate information sources. I don't care who has previously considered the Gazan Ministry of Health to be mostly reliable. That is no longer true. The Israeli attack on the hospital is clear proof of them lying. Casualty figures out by a factor of 10 or more according to non-Israeli intelligence, and the supposedly levelled hospital standing with only cosmetic damage to a small part.
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
If you want to say that the Gazan Health Ministry is no longer a good source of info, I am happy to take that on board. Please tell me the better source and why and I will happily look at them instead.
Why the hell do you need to have numbers so badly that you'll accept one that you know is nonsense?
I mean, people questioned me about sourcing when I quoted numbers - I was just using the UN who use the GHM. And they seem to be used because in the past they have not been nonsense and, indeed, have been the most accurate.
They've always been nonsense. It's fundamentally the same problem as Russian/Chinese COVID death statistics - you're dealing with people who are entirely happy to just make these things up if they think it'll help them in any way.
Anyway, it's a meaningless number to quote, because it doesn't distinguish between actual civilians and Hamas operatives.
Okay, so your position is that it has never been a good source? So why did the UN and basically all international journalists use them over other sources?
Comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4273138-rfk-jr-robert-f-kennedy-jr-independent-conservative-donald-trump-2024/
Oh, sorry, were you not talking about the cops?
They aren't, they did a press release specifically condemning them and calling for peace:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-palestinian-armed-groups-must-be-held-accountable-for-deliberate-civilian-killings-abductions-and-indiscriminate-attacks/
Jesus Christ - this is why people get so annoyed by "will you condemn Hamas" or "but you didn't condemn Hamas" because, if you support Palestinian people in any way, when you do no one looks at it or doesn't believe you anyway.
Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians
Whatever they say going forward it is the word of an organisation who have already egregiously lied to us to bend the will of the international community. They are not remotely credible, and it beggars belief that anyone is still taking their word for anything.
That does not mean that nobody is being killed in Gaza - far from it. But lets look at evidence produced by credible actors, not the terrorists.
Premier League demands 12-point deduction as maximum punishment if Everton are found guilty of breaching financial rules. Important to note that final decision will be made by an independent commission. Everton maintain they have complied with the rules
https://x.com/JPercyTelegraph/status/1717150376032371133?s=20
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 44% (-)
CON: 24% (-)
LDEM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 9% (+1)
via @IpsosUK, 11 - 18 Oct"
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1717156395026395436
Life???
The man is a depraved and criminal pervert, but his crime is the procurement of images from underage girls, via video
Actual rapists of underage girls - one thinks of several northern cities - get way less than life
Am I missing something? is it coz he is a copper? Still seems very severe
Here is Mike Johnson railing against Roe v. Wade, arguing that if women were forced to give birth to more “able-bodied workers,” Republicans wouldn’t try to cut Social Security and Medicare
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1717177186086465983
(there may have been further developments still)
I doubt we will ever know. It is an intense urban war zone where both sides are hurling vast amounts of ordnance at each other, could have been either side. Whoever is responsible, I doubt it was deliberate. Too much of an obvious own goal
BBC Verify suggesting it was a Gazan rocket is equivalent to the tabloid apology on page 24.
Hey kids, you remember that violent long standing murderous relationship in the Middle East, well it turned out you just needed a constitution to tell people not to be mean.
We are now at the stage mandatory life sentence means nothing of the sort in most cases, unless it is the whole life sentences handed out for serial killers and police killers, killer rapists and premeditated child murderers.
In my opinion they should just drop the term unless it is an actual whole life term as it always sets the Daily Mail comments section off
Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference
https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10?r=US&IR=T
Despite being invented in Canada by a bespectacled Greek immigrant living just across Lake St. Clair from Detroit, Hawaiian pizza actually peaks in popularity in the U.S. in its namesake state, the erstwhile Sandwich Islands. Reviewers there are more likely to name-drop pineapple than in any mainland state — though, like so much in Hawaii, that could be an unwanted outside imposition. We sometimes waded through more than a dozen tourist opinions before hearing from the first local in Yelp reviews."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/01/pizza-favorite-styles-chicago/
(Links omitted.)
If there is a political correlation in that distribution, it is not evident to me.
Curiously, the supermarkets here seldom carry pineapple pizza in their frozen pizza sections. (Perhaps it doesn't freeze well?
As far as I can see he never physically encountered any of the girls, and there was no actual physical abuse? If I am wrong then I will of course change my mind
But in a world where men who actually rape underage girls get 7-10 years then this seems out of whack
... [big snip] ...
The data crisis is deeply problematic for economic policy. The ONS cannot currently tell us with any certainty whether the labour market is loosening or tightening, so the Bank of England will have more difficulty than usual in setting interest rates. It cannot tell us whether the UK really has been an international outlier after the pandemic in seeing a sharp rise in the number of sick people not seeking work, potentially highlighting the damaging economic effects of high NHS waiting lists. It cannot provide any guidance on whether tax changes have caused a collapse in the self-employed.
https://www.ft.com/content/d6bdfe59-af9a-427a-8d10-f8b58be60593 (£££)
Official employment statistics are based on a survey whose response rate is barely in double figures (never mind that the operational definition of unemployed is fairly dubious to start with).
74/5 chasing 400.
The Vatican also much prefers Roman Catholics who sin (always room for confession) than saintly atheists in terms of keeping their numbers up, the fact Boris married Carrie in Westminster Cathedral not a registry office also shows he at least considers himself RC.
Labour put an infamous poster out about Howard and Letwin some considered anti Semitic in 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4217009.stm
...Lewis Edwards, of Cefn Glas, Bridgend, groomed more than 200 girls online.
The 24-year-old, who had 4,500 indecent images of children, admitted 160 counts of child sexual abuse and blackmail.
The South Wales Police officer messaged 210 girls aged 10 to 16 from November 2020 until February 2023 and images of 207 of them were found on his devices...
A 'constitution' is only good if everyone follows it. How do you get Hamas - whose avowed aim is essentially to kill all Jews, and which is supported by large numbers of Palestinians - to suddenly decide to love their Jewish neighbours?
Your idea would lead to a bloodbath akin to the Rwandan genocide. If you cannot see that, then you are a fool. If you do see it and still want it, then you are borderline evil.
Hamas are a massive blocker to any form of peace.
But if we’re gonna hand down sentences this harsh for online abuse then I think we need to do the same for people who ACTUALLY rape underage girls
First one googled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang
Sentences range from 4 to 39 years, and life with a minimum of 18 years.
I divide Chancellors into two broad categories: simplifiers and complicators. In general, the first group are ones that tend to leave the economy in better shape. Examples of simplification would be the removal of excess bands of taxation. Examples of complication would be their addition, or the adding novel taxes, or indeed, attempting to shape the economy by lots of targeted little bits of subsidy.
The worst complicators in modern history were Gordon Brown and Norman Lamont. The greatest simplifiers were Geoffrey Howe and Kenneth Clarke (with an honourable mention for Alistair Darling, who at least tried to undo some of Brown's work.)
Osborne was more of a simplifier, but not a very good one. Sunak was definitely more of a complicator. Kwarteng would have been a simplifier, but left before he was able to do anything.
Hunt, though, has committed the worst offence of all. He's done nothing. In two years in the top job, he has done nothing to remove the ridiculous wrinkles in the marginal tax rate. I realise that "steady as she goes" has its appeals, but his anaction has been appalling. I would rate him as 3/10.
He strikes me more as a classical Greek "turn yourself into a swan to impress the babes" kinda guy.
This was because the categorisation of employment and other details didn’t fit the facts.
"Mansoor Akhtar, aged 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Crosland Moor, was jailed for 8 years for rape of a child under 16 and trafficking offences;
Mohammed Irfraz, aged 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, was jailed for 6 years for child abduction and trafficking offences;"
8 years for ACTUALLY raping an underage girl (plus child trafficking?!)
The copper got 12 years for online abuse and manipulation
Both are horrible crimes but I find the former considerably worse
A pity all of us Catholic Atheists don't get a vote, or we might have enough to shut the thing down.
Maybe Boris just feels more at home.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12670123/Pope-Francis-accepts-resignation-Polish-bishop-diocese-rocked-priests-gay-orgy-sex-party-saw-man-overdose-erectile-dysfunction-pills.html
Indeed, I'd say that the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997, were extremely fortunate to have three simplifiers and only one complicator at the Treasury. (Major was there so briefly, I haven't categorized him.)
Being a police officer, if the victims were aware of this, is however a massively aggravating factor in this particular case. The police need to be squeaky clean, and seen as being squeaky clean.
Attempting to enforce constitutionality, rather than a polity coming together around a constitution that is commonly agreed upon, doesn’t work.
Hence what is happening in the US right now.
It strikes me that if you really want to up your NRR batting 1st is the way to go. If you're chasing - even as quickly then you're adding fewer runs and fewer overs to the aggregate total so it's less of an overall effect.
This is a 386-80
https://www.pinterest.it/pin/804596289650164366/
This is a Boeing 707
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20141020-the-plane-that-changed-air-travel
Obviously totally different.
So, all other things being equal, I'd expect rape to have a higher sentence than online abuse. But if there are several aggregating factors in one case, and not another, then I'd also expect some overlap so that some convictions of online abuse would merit a higher sentence than some convictions for rape.
Obviously we could argue about the details over aggravating factors in each case. But I think the inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
Anyway, it's a meaningless number to quote, because it doesn't distinguish between actual civilians and Hamas operatives.
Vote Tory? Pay more tax...
Though it does remind me of a Mrs. Malaprop quote: 'Many men have complicated me on that carpet' - must just be my sick mind.
Lol.
In this context, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be curious about how many have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, ideally separated out into combatants (Hamas) and non-combatants (civilians), although I recognise that this would probably be impossible. For those who don't believe the figures coming from Hamas itself, which I agree are not reliable, where should we look? Or should we just guess? Or doesn't it matter?
(Question To Which Answer Is Hell No! Are You Frigging Kidding Me?)
But in general, I think that Chancellors should strive to make things simpler, and should try and minimize the micromanagement.
Reducing the number or bands of income tax or VAT= good
Targeted tax breaks to make people go to restaurants = bad
And I think this somewhat transcends political boundaries. Yes, Clarke and Howe were both Conservatives. But Darling was not. Barber was a massive complicator and a Conservative.
If nothing else this terrible tragedy has revealed how anti-Semitism still flourishes in Western society.
And while we all (rightly) moan about the higher one here, the lower end one is the more important, because it directly disincentivizes people from entering the workforce.
Civilians killed by police/10 million inhabitants (2019)
US – 33.5
Canada – 9.8
Australia – 8.5
Netherlands – 2.3
New Zealand – 2.0
Germany – 1.3
England and Wales - 0.5
Road deaths/billion kilometers
US – 8.3
New Zealand – 7.2
Australia – 5.2
Canada – 5.1
Netherlands – 4.7
Germany – 4.2
England and Wales – 3.8
Agreed on the NRR, it’s been rather weird to see teams winning the toss elect to field in the d/n matches of this tournament.
Talking of which, it’s England v SL tomorrow, an absolute must-win for both sides. Hopefully I’ll get to watch most of it.
The details of the Huddersfield grooming case make it clear it was way worse than anything this pervert copper did. To my mind
"By the time she was 15, the first victim had been raped by 300 men.
The defendants were convicted of nine counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault after the sixth trial to come from the Tendersea inquiry.
Ali, 34, of Huddersfield, was jailed for eight years after being found guilty of two offences of rape against one victim.
Riaz, 43, also of Huddersfield, was sentenced to 15 years after being found guilty of rape and two indecent assaults against one girl and rape against the other.
Banaras Hussain, 39, of Shipley, was jailed for nine and a half years after being found guilty of raping one of the schoolgirls.
Abdul Majid, 36, of Huddersfield, was sentenced to 11 years after being found guilty of raping one victim twice.
A fifth, 30 and also from Huddersfield, was jailed for four years for raping one of the girls. The sixth was Hussain, who could not be named at the time."
So one guy got four years - FOUR YEARS - for actual underage rape, of a 13 year old, in a massive campaign of gang rape and trafficking where one girl was raped by 300 men. Compare and contrast
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8261687/Paedophile-31-Huddersfield-jailed-four-years-raping-13-year-old-girl.html
But Reeves won't have to pretend that taxes are flat or falling to anything like the same degree. And a lot of the complexities we all seem to hate have come about to bring in more revenue without increasing anything at headline level.
Indeed there are more new devout Catholics in Latin America and Africa than atheist Catholics from northern Europe who are no longer interested
What made Brown a complicator wasn't his tinkering with income taxes but the introduction of lots of other taxes. He essentially killed off final salary pensions in the 1990's when he introduced changes. Income tax and NI are, for most people, simple taxes and adding/removing bands doesn't change the overall complexity of the tax system by much. The same goes for VAT.
the problem is the additional duties, levies and exceptions. the exceptions are the worst part overall and most were put in for good reason (to encourage the right behaviour) but they are what add to the complexity.
Ah, fair enough.
That's why I use the UN, who use the GHM