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)
Personally, I don't think there is a valid source available unless or until Hamas are no longer in charge.
Its like taking figures as verbatim when they come from Russia or China - we know the figures are a lie, they know the figures are a lie, but getting to the truth is nearly impossible.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
"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 absolutely 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 must agree to disagree
The whole argument is too depressing and we have plenty of depressing news as it is
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust and are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if people have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise please just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Well done on complaining about offensive remarks by making a staggeringly offensive remark
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.
Maybe he has, with Yeats, reached this age, and point in his life:
Now that my ladder's gone I must lie down where all the ladders start In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.
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
The US number is very scary.
The US is a very scary country, when the police pull a gun on you because your indicator bulb has blown you have to wonder where the US will end up.
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.
What jumps out at me is the difference in the wings, above all at the wing/fuselage junction. That's the level of difference you could see with a pair of binoculars on a transiting plane above here.
(Given the number of near-identikit designs especially those days.)
"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 absolutely 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 must agree to disagree
The whole argument is too depressing and we have plenty of depressing news as it is
I should say that I was surprised that you made the argument that a sentence was too harsh. Not what people would expect from your caricature.
"It’s clear that the amount of aid and essential utilities getting into Gaza is completely insufficient to meet the humanitarian emergency on the ground."
I predict that won#t be enough to satisfy his pro-Palestine detractors and mighy simply annoy the other side. He's in a spot of bother here
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Which of my comments did you find offensive, and why?
If the moderators wish to ban me, or give me a holiday, then that's fine. They run the site, they make the rules. But please let me know what you think I've said that is so offensive.
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.
Of course its not impossible. What may be true is todays politicians are too weak and inexperienced to know how to do it and keep (enough of) the public on board.
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!
It wasn't though - seems to have been consistently high since at least 1990.
Needless to say the dead are disproportionately Maori. Needless to say there's a clear left-right split on whether that's because the police are racist, or criminals are disportionately Maori.
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?
I think the big difference between the two sides is that Israel has an active and fairly free press which will take the time to investigate and fact check these things. Any claims from the Government over the number of casualties which were inflated would pretty quickly be found out and the Israeli Governmemt knows it. The same sadly does not apply to Hamas.
I think it is entirely possible that the bombings have killed several thousand in Gaza so far. Particularly given the scale of destruction we have seen and how yghtly packed in civilians are there. But I have no way of knowing if it is true and no reason to trust Hamas to be honest about it given their history - both recent and older. So I find myself disbelieving anything being claimed from Hamas beyond the fact that civilians have died and we will have to wait and hope the truth about numbers comes out at some point.
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.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
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?
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
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.
Of course its not impossible. What may be true is todays politicians are too weak and inexperienced to know how to do it and keep (enough of) the public on board.
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, 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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
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?
I think the big difference between the two sides is that Israel has an active and fairly free press which will take the time to investigate and fact check these things. Any claims from the Government over the number of casualties which were inflated would pretty quickly be found out and the Israeli Governmemt knows it. The same sadly does not apply to Hamas.
I think it is entirely possible that the bombings have killed several thousand in Gaza so far. Particularly given the scale of destruction we have seen and how yghtly packed in civilians are there. But I have no way of knowing if it is true and no reason to trust Hamas to be honest about it given their history - both recent and older. So I find myself disbelieving anything being claimed from Hamas beyond the fact that civilians have died and we will have to wait and hope the truth about numbers comes out at some point.
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.
What jumps out at me is the difference in the wings, above all at the wing/fuselage junction. That's the level of difference you could see with a pair of binoculars on a transiting plane above here.
(Given the number of near-identikit designs especially those days.)
As market requirements converge, so do the 'best' designs.
What interest me are some of the details; for instance Boeing's blended winglet versus Airbus' fences. Although even then there are variations where they copy each other.
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
"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 absolutely 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 must agree to disagree
The whole argument is too depressing and we have plenty of depressing news as it is
I should say that I was surprised that you made the argument that a sentence was too harsh. Not what people would expect from your caricature.
A liberal is a conservative who's been to prison
I've done a bit of time. I know from that experience what various tariffs mean in ACTUALITY. When someone is given more than ten years they are said to be "lifed away". Hope is virtually extinguished, if they do serve anything near to 10+ years their lives will be broken forever, perhaps utterly ruined
Now, plenty of people deserve these severe sentences. But I would generally reserve them for violent offenders. Actual rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc
This guy is a vile pervert but he basically did what millions of teen boys do every night: persuade young girls to sext them and send nude selfies. Does he deserve to have his life broken forever for this? Hmm. I am genuinely not sure
More important, and try as I might - and yes, I count the numbers, and yes, he was a copper - I can't put him in the same category as someone who actually physically rapes a 13 year old girl
"It’s clear that the amount of aid and essential utilities getting into Gaza is completely insufficient to meet the humanitarian emergency on the ground."
I predict that won#t be enough to satisfy his pro-Palestine detractors and mighy simply annoy the other side. He's in a spot of bother here
I wonder if he remembers that his predecessor as an opportunistic and unprincipled Labour leader, Tony Blair, was undone by the Middle East in two ways: the Iraq war, and the now-forgotten Lebanese crisis in the summer of 2007?
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.
A bit silly, isn't it. A church I think is just a load of nonsense considers me to be a member.
A pity all of us Catholic Atheists don't get a vote, or we might have enough to shut the thing down.
Given there are 1.3 billion baptised Roman Catholics worldwide, more than double the entire population of Europe, I highly doubt it.
Indeed there are more new devout Catholics in Latin America and Africa than atheist Catholics from northern Europe who are no longer interested
Although what you say is undoubtedly correct I think the initial point being made is still valid and that is an Atheist born and baptist a Catholic really isn't a Catholic no matter what the pope (or whoever is in charge of these things) says and for them to consider an Atheist one of their members is silly.
And as many have posted it seems unlikely that Boris really does think deeply about his religion and that has caused him to change churches several times and rather he did so for simple convenience.
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.
What jumps out at me is the difference in the wings, above all at the wing/fuselage junction. That's the level of difference you could see with a pair of binoculars on a transiting plane above here.
(Given the number of near-identikit designs especially those days.)
As market requirements converge, so do the 'best' designs.
What interest me are some of the details; for instance Boeing's blended winglet versus Airbus' fences. Although even then there are variations where they copy each other.
Quite so. I remember going out on one small airliner and back on another leg, and wondering why the fire exits were in different places (I always look at that bit ...) - till it dawned on me that the planes themselves were completely different makes. They were so similar externally it just didn't register till I'd got in and sat down.
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
Oh shit another government IT project that will fall flat on its face. The old system worked perfectly well until they started pratting about with 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...
Just to note that a relevant legal point is that sentencing in criminal cases is based on sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences. Whilst the convictions were quite recent, the Huddersfield offences were committed between 2004 and 2011 so the guidelines in force at that time would have applied.
I don't know the detail but understand guidelines in relation to sexual offences have been revised a couple of times since then, essentially to provide for longer sentences.
That may well be one important reason for apparent inconsistencies. Indeed you occasionally get awful historic offences from the 1980s and earlier where punishments seem remarkably lenient but are actually right at the top of the range the judge is able to impose because the guidelines that apply were written in a very different age when such matters were simply taken less seriously than today.
Had the Huddersfield offences been committed in the last few years, or the South Wales case happened 2007-2011, the respective sentences would be likely to be very different.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Get lost Roger. I am strongly opposed to what a lot of the people you are talking about believe but the answer is to argue the case with them not ban them or stop them from having their say. If you don't like the fact that people have different opinions to yours and hold them strongly then you really should go somewhere else.
This current crisis is going to affect people far beyond just Israel/Palestine and it is already perhaps affecting our politics so (IMHO) it is absolutely valid it is discussed. Some of us will continue to argue the corner for moderation in the Israeli response against those who are more hardline and that is the way to handle it, not banning or censoring people.
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.
Where do you place Lawson?
Not top tier, like Howe or Clarke, but decent second tier. He simplified in many ways, but he also attempted to micromanage the exchange rate.
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
Oh shit another government IT project that will fall flat on its face. The old system worked perfectly well until they started pratting about with it,
Didn't work. Made so many errors and omitted so much that the standard advice from Which and Moneysavingexpert was to go through it all - and then double check everything on the phone with DWP AND HMRC. As Mrs C and I know from loooong and bitter experience. That remains the situation, so far as I know; it's very easy t overpay, in particular.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
JJ is one of the most moderate posters on here IMO. I don't understand what you're talking about.
"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...
Just to note that a relevant legal point is that sentencing in criminal cases is based on sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences. Whilst the convictions were quite recent, the Huddersfield offences were committed between 2004 and 2011 so the guidelines in force at that time would have applied.
I don't know the detail but understand guidelines in relation to sexual offences have been revised a couple of times since then, essentially to provide for longer sentences.
That may well be one important reason for apparent inconsistencies. Indeed you occasionally get awful historic offences from the 1980s and earlier where punishments seem remarkably lenient but are actually right at the top of the range the judge is able to impose because the guidelines that apply were written in a very different age when such matters were simply taken less seriously than today.
Had the Huddersfield offences been committed in the last few years, or the South Wales case happened 2007-2011, the respective sentences would be likely to be very different.
A very fair point
I shall go have a shower then slip out to the Piazza for a martini. I have done a good day's work and I have earned it. The flints are knapped
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.
What jumps out at me is the difference in the wings, above all at the wing/fuselage junction. That's the level of difference you could see with a pair of binoculars on a transiting plane above here.
(Given the number of near-identikit designs especially those days.)
As market requirements converge, so do the 'best' designs.
What interest me are some of the details; for instance Boeing's blended winglet versus Airbus' fences. Although even then there are variations where they copy each other.
Quite so. I remember going out on one small airliner and back on another leg, and wondering why the fire exits were in different places (I always look at that bit ...) - till it dawned on me that the planes themselves were completely different makes. They were so similar externally it just didn't register till I'd got in and sat down.
The base design for airliners, to this day, crystallised around the 367-80 concept (though various people will argue that other designers got there first). It's fairly remarkable how little has changed since then. And how shocking the design looked back then.
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
The important point is abuse of power by people in authority (in this case the police which is what I mentioned). The courts consider that more serious than if the same crime is commited by someone not in a poistion of authority.
This is also why the law allows you to have sex with someone over the age of 16 but not if you are a teacher or someone else in a position of authority.
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
Oh shit another government IT project that will fall flat on its face. The old system worked perfectly well until they started pratting about with it,
Didn't work. Made so many errors and omitted so much that the standard advice from Which and Moneysavingexpert was to go through it all - and then double check everything on the phone with DWP AND HMRC. As Mrs C and I know from loooong and bitter experience. That remains the situation, so far as I know; it's very easy t overpay, in particular.
Im talking about the system before that. You could look up your missing payments and pay straight into the pension. It would appear on your account about a week later. There was none of the sit in a phone queue all day before you can top up.
Have you been to the Bagno ebraico yet? One of Ortigia's more poignant relics. Presumably Archimedes' famous bathtub is round there, too, somewhere.
Ooh no. I have read about it
Today has been cloudy and a bit rainy so I've decided to put shoulder to the wheel and finish a long term project, six hours hard work. But it is done! Yay
The net few days are slated as sunny and fair so I shall venture forth to sightsee. That is on my list! Any more reommendations do please share
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
The important point is abuse of power by people in authority (in this case the police which is what I mentioned). The courts consider that more serious than if the same crime is commited by someone not in a poistion of authority.
This is also why the law allows you to have sex with someone over the age of 16 but not if you are a teacher or someone else in a position of authority.
And similarly, for people who are in your reporting line at work. Well, that is a disciplinary offence, rather than a legal one, I believe. But the principle is the same - the power differential is the problem.
Astounding: @TheLancet is set to publish a letter from 2000 medical professionals —in which these doctors DEBATED whether to demand a release of hostages, and it “was removed” based on “feedback.”
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, who knows?
It would be quite the moment. When was the basic rate last increased? The 1960s?
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Get lost Roger. I am strongly opposed to what a lot of the people you are talking about believe but the answer is to argue the case with them not ban them or stop them from having their say. If you don't like the fact that people have different opinions to yours and hold them strongly then you really should go somewhere else.
This current crisis is going to affect people far beyond just Israel/Palestine and it is already perhaps affecting our politics so (IMHO) it is absolutely valid it is discussed. Some of us will continue to argue the corner for moderation in the Israeli response against those who are more hardline and that is the way to handle it, not banning or censoring people.
Thanks; I would also prefer mor moderation in the Israeli response. But I don't think that calling for one side to be 'moderate' when the other side still holds hostages, is still lobbing rockets over the border, and still wants the other side to be exterminated, is slightly odd.
Where is Hamas's moderation?
Hamas (and Hezbolah/Iran, who are not helping matters...) should immediately release all captives and stop missile attacks. Whilst they are still lobbing missiles, it is hard for me to see how Israel can be more moderate.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
JJ is one of the most moderate posters on here IMO. I don't understand what you're talking about.
Everyone apart from me is an extremist. And totally lacking in knowledge. Or, indeed, self knowledge.
Apart from @TSE who is the world expert on modesty*, of course.
*And low key shoes. But for him, this is more like a hobby.
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
Oh shit another government IT project that will fall flat on its face. The old system worked perfectly well until they started pratting about with it,
Didn't work. Made so many errors and omitted so much that the standard advice from Which and Moneysavingexpert was to go through it all - and then double check everything on the phone with DWP AND HMRC. As Mrs C and I know from loooong and bitter experience. That remains the situation, so far as I know; it's very easy t overpay, in particular.
Im talking about the system before that. You could look up your missing payments and pay straight into the pension. It would appear on your account about a week later. There was none of the sit in a phone queue all day before you can top up.
I think we are talking about the same one. Online. 5 years ago or so? It just wasn't reliable. That was the problem.
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.
Of course its not impossible. What may be true is todays politicians are too weak and inexperienced to know how to do it and keep (enough of) the public on board.
Is what I mean.
Thats a Tory Brexit thing. The explainers, like Clarke and Stewart who were willing to argue their case rather than pander to the headlines and opinion polls left/were kicked out as preferred. And it won the Tories elections so Labours lot are now inexperienced.
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
At least 500 people have been killed in an explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital in the middle of Gaza City, according to the Gaza Health Ministry
Best I can tell, that 500 figure was from a spokesman at the Gaza Health Ministry and was not of the same class of statistic or calculated in the same way as their official Gaza-wide death statistics.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Perhaps Josias Jessop will stop talking about Israel on condition that you stop moaning constantly about Brexit.
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, who knows?
It would be quite the moment. When was the basic rate last increased? The 1960s?
All depends, in reality, on what happens with NI. In several ways.
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.
Of course its not impossible. What may be true is todays politicians are too weak and inexperienced to know how to do it and keep (enough of) the public on board.
Is what I mean.
Thats a Tory Brexit thing. The explainers, like Clarke and Stewart who were willing to argue their case rather than pander to the headlines and opinion polls left/were kicked out as preferred. And it won the Tories elections so Labours lot are now inexperienced.
It is not necessarily ongoing.
I would say that this a general problem in politics.
Populist sound biting wins to the point that we have large numbers of populist soundbite generators. Rather than people who think about policy and strategy. Who could then provide same to the permanent structures of government, to implement.
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Get lost Roger. I am strongly opposed to what a lot of the people you are talking about believe but the answer is to argue the case with them not ban them or stop them from having their say. If you don't like the fact that people have different opinions to yours and hold them strongly then you really should go somewhere else.
This current crisis is going to affect people far beyond just Israel/Palestine and it is already perhaps affecting our politics so (IMHO) it is absolutely valid it is discussed. Some of us will continue to argue the corner for moderation in the Israeli response against those who are more hardline and that is the way to handle it, not banning or censoring people.
Thanks; I would also prefer mor moderation in the Israeli response. But I don't think that calling for one side to be 'moderate' when the other side still holds hostages, is still lobbing rockets over the border, and still wants the other side to be exterminated, is slightly odd.
Where is Hamas's moderation?
Hamas (and Hezbolah/Iran, who are not helping matters...) should immediately release all captives and stop missile attacks. Whilst they are still lobbing missiles, it is hard for me to see how Israel can be more moderate.
I suppose the difference for me is I see the Israelis as a democracy which believes in and adheres to the standards of the rest of the civilised world, even if under some Governments (such as the current administration) they act in a way far below what we would expect of them. So calls for moderation and adherence to accepted rules which they themselves have signed up to is a reasonable position to take.
The same does not apply to Hamas who are animals and who have shown throughout their history they are not interested in civilised behaviour either towards Israel or their own people.
Basically we expect responsible governments to behave responsibly. We do not expect the same of murderous rabble.
In one respect the October 7 attacks have been a disaster for Palestine. Because they have revealed that so many pro-Palestinian voices are basically and viscerally anti-Semitic, to the point of applauding the slaughter of 7 year old girls hiding under tables, simply for being Jewish
"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.
Yes, it is getting on for Savile territory. Either this copper was very prolific, and I suppose online that would be relatively easy, or he was swapping with other offenders.
Have you been to the Bagno ebraico yet? One of Ortigia's more poignant relics. Presumably Archimedes' famous bathtub is round there, too, somewhere.
Ooh no. I have read about it
Today has been cloudy and a bit rainy so I've decided to put shoulder to the wheel and finish a long term project, six hours hard work. But it is done! Yay
The net few days are slated as sunny and fair so I shall venture forth to sightsee. That is on my list! Any more reommendations do please share
Quite enjoyed dining with the young, trendy crowd here:
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
The important point is abuse of power by people in authority (in this case the police which is what I mentioned). The courts consider that more serious than if the same crime is commited by someone not in a poistion of authority.
This is also why the law allows you to have sex with someone over the age of 16 but not if you are a teacher or someone else in a position of authority.
I think it's a case of societal trust. I send my son to school in the trust that no-one at the school will abuse him. I *trust* the school, his teachers and the wider staff not to do so. I do not have a say over who those staff are, nor can I really vet them, as I might do if I was sending him on a playdate or a sleepover.
Likewise, we should 'trust' the police not to abuse people it has power over - especially as police powers can be very severe.
Teachers who abuse kids, doctors who abuse, harm or kill, or police who abuse or hurt people, all have power over the public, and those who break the trust the public should have in them should face harsher penalties IMO. Because without that trust society faces severe problems.
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
Oh shit another government IT project that will fall flat on its face. The old system worked perfectly well until they started pratting about with it,
Didn't work. Made so many errors and omitted so much that the standard advice from Which and Moneysavingexpert was to go through it all - and then double check everything on the phone with DWP AND HMRC. As Mrs C and I know from loooong and bitter experience. That remains the situation, so far as I know; it's very easy t overpay, in particular.
Im talking about the system before that. You could look up your missing payments and pay straight into the pension. It would appear on your account about a week later. There was none of the sit in a phone queue all day before you can top up.
I think we are talking about the same one. Online. 5 years ago or so? It just wasn't reliable. That was the problem.
Maybe, I last topped up about 10 years ago. But as for reliability the current one doesnt even let you get to the duff data stage.
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, who knows?
It would be quite the moment. When was the basic rate last increased? The 1960s?
1974 by Denis Healey, I believe. There were more tax bands then, of course, so slightly tricky to say what "basic rate" means.
"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.
Yes, it is getting on for Savile territory. Either this copper was very prolific, and I suppose online that would be relatively easy, or he was swapping with other offenders.
It happened over two years, I think? Online it would be extremely easy. One every few days. Just go in the right corners of instagram or Tik Tok
This really is not comparable - at all - with the monstrous crimes of someone like Savile
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, who knows?
It would be quite the moment. When was the basic rate last increased? The 1960s?
There was the 10p rate that Brown both introduced and abolished. Maybe mucking around with the tiers is the way to sweep away the spikes, quietly bring in more (sorry, it's inevitable when the deficit is as big as it is) and leave the lowest rate where it is or a bit lower. Where would the boundaries have to be if the rates were 15/30/45?
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Get lost Roger. I am strongly opposed to what a lot of the people you are talking about believe but the answer is to argue the case with them not ban them or stop them from having their say. If you don't like the fact that people have different opinions to yours and hold them strongly then you really should go somewhere else.
This current crisis is going to affect people far beyond just Israel/Palestine and it is already perhaps affecting our politics so (IMHO) it is absolutely valid it is discussed. Some of us will continue to argue the corner for moderation in the Israeli response against those who are more hardline and that is the way to handle it, not banning or censoring people.
Thanks; I would also prefer mor moderation in the Israeli response. But I don't think that calling for one side to be 'moderate' when the other side still holds hostages, is still lobbing rockets over the border, and still wants the other side to be exterminated, is slightly odd.
Where is Hamas's moderation?
Hamas (and Hezbolah/Iran, who are not helping matters...) should immediately release all captives and stop missile attacks. Whilst they are still lobbing missiles, it is hard for me to see how Israel can be more moderate.
I suppose the difference for me is I see the Israelis as a democracy which believes in and adheres to the standards of the rest of the civilised world, even if under some Governments (such as the current administration) they act in a way far below what we would expect of them. So calls for moderation and adherence to accepted rules which they themselves have signed up to is a reasonable position to take.
The same does not apply to Hamas who are animals and who have shown throughout their history they are not interested in civilised behaviour either towards Israel or their own people.
Basically we expect responsible governments to behave responsibly. We do not expect the same of murderous rabble.
"But this being has a human shape, Gurney, and deserves human doubt."
I can introduce you to some... interesting people, in Peru.
Changed by the civil war there. In a sense they are very different to people such as us, now. But still deserving of the doubt.
In comic moments I wonder what the "All immigrants are great" types would make of them, if/when they turn in the UK.
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.
Maybe he has, with Yeats, reached this age, and point in his life:
Now that my ladder's gone I must lie down where all the ladders start In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.
OT word association. Yeats won the Gold Cup four times, but you cannot write Yeats on the Betfair forum (it is replaced by asterisks). No-one knows why.
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
An appeal to the moderators. Those of us who come on here to read about politics and other current affairs are being drowned out by two or three posters with an unhealthy and certainly unattractive blood lust who are simply using this site to revel in it.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
Get lost Roger. I am strongly opposed to what a lot of the people you are talking about believe but the answer is to argue the case with them not ban them or stop them from having their say. If you don't like the fact that people have different opinions to yours and hold them strongly then you really should go somewhere else.
This current crisis is going to affect people far beyond just Israel/Palestine and it is already perhaps affecting our politics so (IMHO) it is absolutely valid it is discussed. Some of us will continue to argue the corner for moderation in the Israeli response against those who are more hardline and that is the way to handle it, not banning or censoring people.
Thanks; I would also prefer mor moderation in the Israeli response. But I don't think that calling for one side to be 'moderate' when the other side still holds hostages, is still lobbing rockets over the border, and still wants the other side to be exterminated, is slightly odd.
Where is Hamas's moderation?
Hamas (and Hezbolah/Iran, who are not helping matters...) should immediately release all captives and stop missile attacks. Whilst they are still lobbing missiles, it is hard for me to see how Israel can be more moderate.
I suppose the difference for me is I see the Israelis as a democracy which believes in and adheres to the standards of the rest of the civilised world, even if under some Governments (such as the current administration) they act in a way far below what we would expect of them. So calls for moderation and adherence to accepted rules which they themselves have signed up to is a reasonable position to take.
The same does not apply to Hamas who are animals and who have shown throughout their history they are not interested in civilised behaviour either towards Israel or their own people.
Basically we expect responsible governments to behave responsibly. We do not expect the same of murderous rabble.
Yes, I can see and understand that viewpoint. The other day I mused about what would happen if Israel did not react externally to every stabbing, bombing or rocket attack; they could arrest the culprits, or shoot down missiles over/in their own territory, but do nothing that affected their neighbours. Basically, ignore the violence being inflicted upon them.
The problem with that is that it would not stop the stabbings, bombings and missile attacks. We would expect Israel to take a beating that could lead to its destruction, especially if we did not expect any other state to do the same.
IMV it all comes down to Hamas. How should Israel tackle Hamas? How can they deal with a government that wants them all dead?
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
The important point is abuse of power by people in authority (in this case the police which is what I mentioned). The courts consider that more serious than if the same crime is commited by someone not in a poistion of authority.
This is also why the law allows you to have sex with someone over the age of 16 but not if you are a teacher or someone else in a position of authority.
I think it's a case of societal trust. I send my son to school in the trust that no-one at the school will abuse him. I *trust* the school, his teachers and the wider staff not to do so. I do not have a say over who those staff are, nor can I really vet them, as I might do if I was sending him on a playdate or a sleepover.
Likewise, we should 'trust' the police not to abuse people it has power over - especially as police powers can be very severe.
Teachers who abuse kids, doctors who abuse, harm or kill, or police who abuse or hurt people, all have power over the public, and those who break the trust the public should have in them should face harsher penalties IMO. Because without that trust society faces severe problems.
Also, you should be able to ‘trust’ that if there were concerns they would be raised and the person dealt with in short order.
"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
Abuse of power by police will always be considered more serious for any given crime. And bear in mind life means 12 years so out in 8 which does not seem particularly harsh to me for the offence. I have seen your separate posting about the grooming gangs and agree there is a discrepency but that simply underlines that those sentances were too lenient rather than Edwards' is too harsh.
Aren't all crimes an abuse of power by definition?
The important point is abuse of power by people in authority (in this case the police which is what I mentioned). The courts consider that more serious than if the same crime is commited by someone not in a poistion of authority.
This is also why the law allows you to have sex with someone over the age of 16 but not if you are a teacher or someone else in a position of authority.
I think it's a case of societal trust. I send my son to school in the trust that no-one at the school will abuse him. I *trust* the school, his teachers and the wider staff not to do so. I do not have a say over who those staff are, nor can I really vet them, as I might do if I was sending him on a playdate or a sleepover.
Likewise, we should 'trust' the police not to abuse people it has power over - especially as police powers can be very severe.
Teachers who abuse kids, doctors who abuse, harm or kill, or police who abuse or hurt people, all have power over the public, and those who break the trust the public should have in them should face harsher penalties IMO. Because without that trust society faces severe problems.
Yes. Hence Misconduct in a Public Office being a thing.
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, who knows?
It would be quite the moment. When was the basic rate last increased? The 1960s?
1974 by Denis Healey, I believe. There were more tax bands then, of course, so slightly tricky to say what "basic rate" means.
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.
I'd say putting an increase in the basic rate of income tax in your manifesto for a GE is politically impossible, as you'd probably lose that GE. Having won the election, who knows?
It would be quite the moment. When was the basic rate last increased? The 1960s?
1974 by Denis Healey, I believe. There were more tax bands then, of course, so slightly tricky to say what "basic rate" means.
I bet that raised an eyebrow or two.
In the 70s there was Moore than one eyebrow to raise.
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
Invading is a terrible trap imho.
They will be bogged down in horrendous urban warfare for months if not longer.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
I'm not sure about huge win for Biden, it is definitely bad news for Netanyahu. First he lets Oct 7 happen on his watch, now "Mr Security" Bibi Netanyahu, after bloviaing about revenge, has to stand down his army? And Israel stares at him in disbelief
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
Invading is a terrible trap imho.
They will be bogged down in horrendous urban warfare for months if not longer.
Yes I agree. The trouble is, for Israel, the alternatives look no more appetising. They all taste of bitter defeat
I remember the madman @Stark_Dawning on October 7 claiming the attack was a huge coup for Hamas. I dismissed it at the time. Maybe he was right
However, as I also say, it is longterm disastrous for Palestine that so much of its support has revealed a core of Jew hatred
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
Players of 3-dimensional war chess will be wondering if this will mean Ukraine too can have upgraded American air defences. Earlier Israel had blocked Iron Dome exports.
ETA I'm not sure this necessarily weakens Netanyahu. Aiui he has been less hawkish on the ground invasion than some.
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
And I fear Hamas will do it again. It's a very hard thing to guard against, and they'll think it's already worked once.
Bibs: sorry guys, Big Daddy is preventing us from carrying out our highly developed and foolproof plan for destroying Hamas. We’ll carry on beasting Gaza City of course.
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
It could work if they use the huge build up of troops as a deterrent and then spend a couple of weeks, with adequate clear warnings, totally levelling Gaza within a distance of, say 1km, from the Israeli border.
If they create an absolute dead zone they are able to ensure anyone in that area afterwards is treated as a hostile and act accordingly with early warning. They would, to balance out the destruction then have to also say that the Gaza authorities, whoever they might be, can now do whatever they like in Gaza, it’s now their land but anyone in the 1km buffer zone gets killed on sight.
Israel then can rest a bit easier from any surprise attacks, they have “punished” Hamas and will actually punish Hamas more by virtue of when Gaza can get on independently from Israel and Hamas cannot organise basic society and no longer blame Israel their flag isn’t one to rally to.
Then the Israelis can go on a Post Munich style targeting globally of Hamas backers and supporters.
The world is surprised by the lack of a huge onslaught and street to street fighting, Israel gets security and vengeance and the Palestinians can have control of their lives in Gaza under the good government of Hamas.
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
Invading is a terrible trap imho.
They will be bogged down in horrendous urban warfare for months if not longer.
Yes I agree. The trouble is, for Israel, the alternatives look no more appetising. They all taste of bitter defeat
I remember the madman @Stark_Dawning on October 7 claiming the attack was a huge coup for Hamas. I dismissed it at the time. Maybe he was right
However, as I also say, it is longterm disastrous for Palestine that so much of its support has revealed a core of Jew hatred
I don't see why that claim was so amazing. He was absolutely right. Israel on the cusp of a deal with the Saudis, commit an unprecedented attack on Israelis soil, sit back and watch precisely no good options for Israel.
This of course hinges upon Hamas not caring at all about the citizens of Gaza but fortunately for Hamas, they do not care at all about the citizens of Gaza. Or "martyrs" as an increasing number of them should now I believe be called.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
I'm not sure about huge win for Biden, it is definitely bad news for Netanyahu. First he lets Oct 7 happen on his watch, now "Mr Security" Bibi Netanyahu, after bloviaing about revenge, has to stand down his army? And Israel stares at him in disbelief
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
Anythint that cools the conflict down without a wider escalation or a prolonged ground offensive is a win for Biden. It offers the prospect of isolating Iran diplomatically by allowing the Saudis to reopen peace talks with Israel, for instance.
I am beginning to think this invasion is never going to happen. It is too dangerous for Israel, they easily risk getting bogged down in a hideous unwinnable urban war, and it is extremely likely to kick off a wider war, starting with a Hezbollah incursion from the north (and Israel has already been burned by Hezbollah)
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
Invading is a terrible trap imho.
They will be bogged down in horrendous urban warfare for months if not longer.
Israel needs a clear plan. The only way to win this game is not to play. Get the arab nations to sort out Gaza and then hand it over to the PLO or Egypt. Meanwhile beat the crap out of Iran.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
Players of 3-dimensional war chess will be wondering if this will mean Ukraine too can have upgraded American air defences. Earlier Israel had blocked Iron Dome exports.
TBF given what's happened, Israel was correct not to send Iron Dome. They need all the interceptors they have.
I also think that Israel's rather craven attitude towards Russia will change. Israel will now be in Ukraine's camp.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
I'm not sure about huge win for Biden, it is definitely bad news for Netanyahu. First he lets Oct 7 happen on his watch, now "Mr Security" Bibi Netanyahu, after bloviaing about revenge, has to stand down his army? And Israel stares at him in disbelief
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
What does Israel get out of invading Gaza? I do not think they will get the destruction of Hamas in any conceivable result.
All they will probably achieve is stamping in a puddle - a lot of water goes everywhere. The puddle remains.
If Biden can take part of the credit for talking such an incursion down, then good for him.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
Players of 3-dimensional war chess will be wondering if this will mean Ukraine too can have upgraded American air defences. Earlier Israel had blocked Iron Dome exports.
TBF given what's happened, Israel was correct not to send Iron Dome. They need all the interceptors they have.
I also think that Israel's rather craven attitude towards Russia will change. Israel will now be in Ukraine's camp.
Especially given Zelensky’s strong support for Israel and Russia’s tacit support of Hamas.
Israel calling off a ground invasion isn't necessarily a defeat for Israel. The only way the conflict gets resolved is if both sides tire of fighting and move to dialogue. That way, everyone wins.
Now I’m skeptical that the conditions exist for dialogue. And I expect they will not for some time, if, sadly, ever. But what this event has done has reminded us all of the terrible situation that exists in the Middle East, and maybe just maybe the eyes of the world may refocus on it, and reinvest energy in working to resolve it. A ground occupation and further bloodshed could potentially push that goal further back. It is tricky to say.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
I'm not sure about huge win for Biden, it is definitely bad news for Netanyahu. First he lets Oct 7 happen on his watch, now "Mr Security" Bibi Netanyahu, after bloviaing about revenge, has to stand down his army? And Israel stares at him in disbelief
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
What does Israel get out of invading Gaza? I do not think they will get the destruction of Hamas in any conceivable result.
All they will probably achieve is stamping in a puddle - a lot of water goes everywhere. The puddle remains.
If Biden can take part of the credit for talking such an incursion down, then good for him.
AS @JosiasJessop says, Israel needs some firm reassurance that Oct 7 can never happen again, otherwise Israel itself is imperilled. Who will risk living within ten miles of Gaza or twenty, or thirty, if there is a tiny chance this could happen again?
Israel is such a small country those apparently modest areas of territory are of immense significance
Without "destroying Hamas" in Gaza Israel is left defeated and still existentially menaced
Off topic, but of interest to some of us. Though others will wish it had been along, oh, maybe 5-10 years ago (and some, like me, will wonder if some people will still be excluded by Government Gateway, even if they have access to kit ...).
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
Oh shit another government IT project that will fall flat on its face. The old system worked perfectly well until they started pratting about with it,
The biggest problem is actually getting to the point where you can give them money in the first place. The whole identity verification system just doesn’t work if you’re out of the country, don’t have a UK mobile phone number for 2FA, and don’t have a pile of physical documents dating back years.
If you want to just give them money, then knowing both your passport number and NI number - which never appear in the same place in a public document - should be sufficient.
Something Significant appears to be ongoing tonight in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu is set to make a Statement sometime in the coming minutes and following that the Spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force will also make a Statement; both of these Statement will likely be in someway linked to the order released earlier by the IDF Homefront Command for Residents near the Gaza Strip.
IDF Homefront Command has just released an order for all Residents who have not Evacuated and are still near the Gaza Strip to remain near Bomb Shelters until further notice.
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
I'm not sure about huge win for Biden, it is definitely bad news for Netanyahu. First he lets Oct 7 happen on his watch, now "Mr Security" Bibi Netanyahu, after bloviaing about revenge, has to stand down his army? And Israel stares at him in disbelief
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
What does Israel get out of invading Gaza? I do not think they will get the destruction of Hamas in any conceivable result.
All they will probably achieve is stamping in a puddle - a lot of water goes everywhere. The puddle remains.
If Biden can take part of the credit for talking such an incursion down, then good for him.
I’m not sure it’s all down to outside influence. There seems to be a lot of hesitation within Netanyahu’s cabinet as well.
According to this thread, a former Netanyahu staffer was responsible for a social media campaign urging Netanyahu not to invade:
Just considering the politics, if true that is a huge win for Biden and another blow to Netanyahu’s authority.
I'm not sure about huge win for Biden, it is definitely bad news for Netanyahu. First he lets Oct 7 happen on his watch, now "Mr Security" Bibi Netanyahu, after bloviaing about revenge, has to stand down his army? And Israel stares at him in disbelief
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
What does Israel get out of invading Gaza? I do not think they will get the destruction of Hamas in any conceivable result.
All they will probably achieve is stamping in a puddle - a lot of water goes everywhere. The puddle remains.
If Biden can take part of the credit for talking such an incursion down, then good for him.
AS @JosiasJessop says, Israel needs some firm reassurance that Oct 7 can never happen again, otherwise Israel itself is imperilled. Who will risk living within ten miles of Gaza or twenty, or thirty, if there is a tiny chance this could happen again?
Israel is such a small country those apparently modest areas of territory are of immense significance
Without "destroying Hamas" in Gaza Israel is left defeated and still existentially menaced
Israel has been existentially menaced from the moment of its creation. It has hostile actors on all sides. The way to peace and its lasting security is hideously complex, but to me it is far from clear that invading Gaza is that way.
"It’s clear that the amount of aid and essential utilities getting into Gaza is completely insufficient to meet the humanitarian emergency on the ground."
I predict that won#t be enough to satisfy his pro-Palestine detractors and mighy simply annoy the other side. He's in a spot of bother here
Triangulating will soon be into hexagating....when it comes to Israel and Palestine, you can't triangulate your way out of it.
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.
Of course its not impossible. What may be true is todays politicians are too weak and inexperienced to know how to do it and keep (enough of) the public on board.
Is what I mean.
Thats a Tory Brexit thing. The explainers, like Clarke and Stewart who were willing to argue their case rather than pander to the headlines and opinion polls left/were kicked out as preferred. And it won the Tories elections so Labours lot are now inexperienced.
It is not necessarily ongoing.
From well before that, although it's got worse with them (like most things). The headline basic rate has become something deemed impossible to raise. You do other tax changes to raise money, anything but that. NI has been a favourite. Also freezing allowances. And sometimes you even frig around elsewhere in Fiscal Corner to raise money to cut that basic rate. It's the worst kind of 'politics over economics'. Let's hope it does change. I'll believe it when I see it.
"It’s clear that the amount of aid and essential utilities getting into Gaza is completely insufficient to meet the humanitarian emergency on the ground."
I predict that won#t be enough to satisfy his pro-Palestine detractors and mighy simply annoy the other side. He's in a spot of bother here
Triangulating will soon be into hexagating....when it comes to Israel and Palestine, you can't triangulate your way out of it.
Which must doubly annoying for Starmer given he’s actually quite right on both counts. Right to condemn Hamas for their raid and right to demand humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza.
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.
Of course its not impossible. What may be true is todays politicians are too weak and inexperienced to know how to do it and keep (enough of) the public on board.
Is what I mean.
Thats a Tory Brexit thing. The explainers, like Clarke and Stewart who were willing to argue their case rather than pander to the headlines and opinion polls left/were kicked out as preferred. And it won the Tories elections so Labours lot are now inexperienced.
It is not necessarily ongoing.
From well before that, although it's got worse with them (like most things). The headline basic rate has become something deemed impossible to raise. You do other tax changes to raise money, anything but that. NI has been a favourite. Also freezing allowances. And sometimes you even frig around elsewhere in Fiscal Corner to raise money to cut that basic rate. It's the worst kind of 'politics over economics'. Let's hope it does change. I'll believe it when I see it.
I actually dont think it would be difficult at the moment. Enough of the country want hospitals and schools to work and understand something has to change. But it needs someone who can be clear, patient and consistent on the messaging.
Comments
Its like taking figures as verbatim when they come from Russia or China - we know the figures are a lie, they know the figures are a lie, but getting to the truth is nearly impossible.
Sure if posters have an understanding or a knowledge of the politics of the area or how it might affect domestic politics fine but otherwise just give it up. Many of us know people who it affects very directly from all sides and to read the thoughts of Jessop and co is just REALLY offensive. They wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one still less an Arab.
The whole argument is too depressing and we have plenty of depressing news as it is
Also illiterate
Now that my ladder's gone
I must lie down where all the ladders start
In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.
(Given the number of near-identikit designs especially those days.)
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1717204195189641257?s=20
"It’s clear that the amount of aid and essential utilities getting into Gaza is completely insufficient to meet the humanitarian emergency on the ground."
I predict that won#t be enough to satisfy his pro-Palestine detractors and mighy simply annoy the other side. He's in a spot of bother here
On topic, he’s a c-list chancellor in a d-list government. I put nothing past the psychogammons in the ERG and the membership though. Chancellor Bone?
If the moderators wish to ban me, or give me a holiday, then that's fine. They run the site, they make the rules. But please let me know what you think I've said that is so offensive.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018834464/licence-to-kill-the-startling-truth-about-new-zealand-s-fatal-police-shootings
Needless to say the dead are disproportionately Maori. Needless to say there's a clear left-right split on whether that's because the police are racist, or criminals are disportionately Maori.
I think it is entirely possible that the bombings have killed several thousand in Gaza so far. Particularly given the scale of destruction we have seen and how yghtly packed in civilians are there. But I have no way of knowing if it is true and no reason to trust Hamas to be honest about it given their history - both recent and older. So I find myself disbelieving anything being claimed from Hamas beyond the fact that civilians have died and we will have to wait and hope the truth about numbers comes out at some point.
Charming! I represent that remark.
Having won the election, who knows?
What interest me are some of the details; for instance Boeing's blended winglet versus Airbus' fences. Although even then there are variations where they copy each other.
Next, maybe DWP can issue real actual P60s each year??
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-12671087/Online-state-pension-voluntary-contributions-service-launched.html?ico=mol_desktop_home-newtab&molReferrerUrl=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html&_gl=1*1abuddf*_ga*NTE3MDU4NjczLjE2NDE5MzI2MzE.*_ga_XE0XLFFF16*MTY5ODI0Nzk4MC4xNDUuMC4xNjk4MjQ3OTg0LjAuMC4w&_ga=2.201149998.1246087551.1697228960-517058673.1641932631
"A new online service for buying state pension top-ups will be launched by the spring, following a deluge of complaints that the current system is confusing and takes too long to process payments.
The website now being developed and tested by the Government will let people check which years are best to top up and buy on the spot, but they will still be able to phone up and pay offline if they prefer."
I've done a bit of time. I know from that experience what various tariffs mean in ACTUALITY. When someone is given more than ten years they are said to be "lifed away". Hope is virtually extinguished, if they do serve anything near to 10+ years their lives will be broken forever, perhaps utterly ruined
Now, plenty of people deserve these severe sentences. But I would generally reserve them for violent offenders. Actual rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc
This guy is a vile pervert but he basically did what millions of teen boys do every night: persuade young girls to sext them and send nude selfies. Does he deserve to have his life broken forever for this? Hmm. I am genuinely not sure
More important, and try as I might - and yes, I count the numbers, and yes, he was a copper - I can't put him in the same category as someone who actually physically rapes a 13 year old girl
And as many have posted it seems unlikely that Boris really does think deeply about his religion and that has caused him to change churches several times and rather he did so for simple convenience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election#Pre-campaign_period
I don't know the detail but understand guidelines in relation to sexual offences have been revised a couple of times since then, essentially to provide for longer sentences.
That may well be one important reason for apparent inconsistencies. Indeed you occasionally get awful historic offences from the 1980s and earlier where punishments seem remarkably lenient but are actually right at the top of the range the judge is able to impose because the guidelines that apply were written in a very different age when such matters were simply taken less seriously than today.
Had the Huddersfield offences been committed in the last few years, or the South Wales case happened 2007-2011, the respective sentences would be likely to be very different.
This current crisis is going to affect people far beyond just Israel/Palestine and it is already perhaps affecting our politics so (IMHO) it is absolutely valid it is discussed. Some of us will continue to argue the corner for moderation in the Israeli response against those who are more hardline and that is the way to handle it, not banning or censoring people.
I shall go have a shower then slip out to the Piazza for a martini. I have done a good day's work and I have earned it. The flints are knapped
This is also why the law allows you to have sex with someone over the age of 16 but not if you are a teacher or someone else in a position of authority.
Today has been cloudy and a bit rainy so I've decided to put shoulder to the wheel and finish a long term project, six hours hard work. But it is done! Yay
The net few days are slated as sunny and fair so I shall venture forth to sightsee. That is on my list! Any more reommendations do please share
@avitalrachel
Astounding:
@TheLancet
is set to publish a letter from 2000 medical professionals —in which these doctors DEBATED whether to demand a release of hostages, and it “was removed” based on “feedback.”
I guess primum non nocere doesn’t apply to Jews.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf3geK9m_FwRsQVvT7NvJatNixW85NAx0BIstCXJmsOlR-E0w/viewform "
https://twitter.com/avitalrachel/status/1717096748496150579?
Where is Hamas's moderation?
Hamas (and Hezbolah/Iran, who are not helping matters...) should immediately release all captives and stop missile attacks. Whilst they are still lobbing missiles, it is hard for me to see how Israel can be more moderate.
Apart from @TSE who is the world expert on modesty*, of course.
*And low key shoes. But for him, this is more like a hobby.
It is not necessarily ongoing.
Populist sound biting wins to the point that we have large numbers of populist soundbite generators. Rather than people who think about policy and strategy. Who could then provide same to the permanent structures of government, to implement.
The same does not apply to Hamas who are animals and who have shown throughout their history they are not interested in civilised behaviour either towards Israel or their own people.
Basically we expect responsible governments to behave responsibly. We do not expect the same of murderous rabble.
"This statement from the Manchester Palestine Solidarity Campaign is appalling.
And certainly one for the authorities.
It is right there on their website: https://psc-manchester.org.uk/page/4/
"The brave fighters gave us all a glimpse of a liberated Palestine"
@PSCupdates
@ManchesterPSC"
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1717187507610120395?s=20
In one respect the October 7 attacks have been a disaster for Palestine. Because they have revealed that so many pro-Palestinian voices are basically and viscerally anti-Semitic, to the point of applauding the slaughter of 7 year old girls hiding under tables, simply for being Jewish
https://www.pianobsiracusa.com
Owner trained as an architect, but decided he'd rather be a cook instead. Hence 'Plan B'.
Likewise, we should 'trust' the police not to abuse people it has power over - especially as police powers can be very severe.
Teachers who abuse kids, doctors who abuse, harm or kill, or police who abuse or hurt people, all have power over the public, and those who break the trust the public should have in them should face harsher penalties IMO. Because without that trust society faces severe problems.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/isral-war-gaza-latest-news-palestinian-un-hostages-00zvm6jl8
Times quoting WSJ.
This really is not comparable - at all - with the monstrous crimes of someone like Savile
I can introduce you to some... interesting people, in Peru.
Changed by the civil war there. In a sense they are very different to people such as us, now. But still deserving of the doubt.
In comic moments I wonder what the "All immigrants are great" types would make of them, if/when they turn in the UK.
https://live.house.gov/
US House in session, with quorum call now in progress . . . manner of speak(er)ing.
Starting to think that the fix (in more ways than one) may finally be in this time.
we shall soon see . . .
Addendum - Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Weathervane) will nominate Mike Johnson (R-Red Meat) for Speaker.
This feels like an immense strategic defeat for Israel. They have been brutally attacked, yet cannot get at the attacker. Hamas will be wildly celebrating
The problem with that is that it would not stop the stabbings, bombings and missile attacks. We would expect Israel to take a beating that could lead to its destruction, especially if we did not expect any other state to do the same.
IMV it all comes down to Hamas. How should Israel tackle Hamas? How can they deal with a government that wants them all dead?
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-25/by-election-looms-as-mps-prepare-to-vote-on-peter-bone-suspension
They will be bogged down in horrendous urban warfare for months if not longer.
I predict he will be gone soon, possibly very soon
I remember the madman @Stark_Dawning on October 7 claiming the attack was a huge coup for Hamas. I dismissed it at the time. Maybe he was right
However, as I also say, it is longterm disastrous for Palestine that so much of its support has revealed a core of Jew hatred
ETA I'm not sure this necessarily weakens Netanyahu. Aiui he has been less hawkish on the ground invasion than some.
If they create an absolute dead zone they are able to ensure anyone in that area afterwards is treated as a hostile and act accordingly with early warning. They would, to balance out the destruction then have to also say that the Gaza authorities, whoever they might be, can now do whatever they like in Gaza, it’s now their land but anyone in the 1km buffer zone gets killed on sight.
Israel then can rest a bit easier from any surprise attacks, they have “punished” Hamas and will actually punish Hamas more by virtue of when Gaza can get on independently from Israel and Hamas cannot organise basic society and no longer blame Israel their flag isn’t one to rally to.
Then the Israelis can go on a Post Munich style targeting globally of Hamas backers and supporters.
The world is surprised by the lack of a huge onslaught and street to street fighting, Israel gets security and vengeance and the Palestinians can have control of their lives in Gaza under the good government of Hamas.
This of course hinges upon Hamas not caring at all about the citizens of Gaza but fortunately for Hamas, they do not care at all about the citizens of Gaza. Or "martyrs" as an increasing number of them should now I believe be called.
I also think that Israel's rather craven attitude towards Russia will change. Israel will now be in Ukraine's camp.
https://x.com/michaelh992/status/1717212482148737041?s=20
All they will probably achieve is stamping in a puddle - a lot of water goes everywhere. The puddle remains.
If Biden can take part of the credit for talking such an incursion down, then good for him.
Now I’m skeptical that the conditions exist for dialogue. And I expect they will not for some time, if, sadly, ever. But what this event has done has reminded us all of the terrible situation that exists in the Middle East, and maybe just maybe the eyes of the world may refocus on it, and reinvest energy in working to resolve it. A ground occupation and further bloodshed could potentially push that goal further back. It is tricky to say.
Israel is such a small country those apparently modest areas of territory are of immense significance
Without "destroying Hamas" in Gaza Israel is left defeated and still existentially menaced
If you want to just give them money, then knowing both your passport number and NI number - which never appear in the same place in a public document - should be sufficient.
IDF Homefront Command has just released an order for all Residents who have not Evacuated and are still near the Gaza Strip to remain near Bomb Shelters until further notice.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1717218544813781304?s=20
Rumors are ongoing regarding the Assassination of a High-Ranking Military Official of Hamas who was Killed today by an Airstrike on the Gaza Strip.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1717216338635075817?s=20
According to this thread, a former Netanyahu staffer was responsible for a social media campaign urging Netanyahu not to invade:
https://x.com/reider/status/1716940811764629546