Sounds about right. If she's recognized at all it will surely be as 'that silly woman who failed to stop the small boats'. Why some are going around proclaiming her a kind of Joan of Arc figure is utterly mysterious. She'll be derided even by - especially by! - people who hate immigration in all its forms.
A terrifying short thread on Ageing Britain (and the ageing world, for that matter)
“Britain is ageing, rapidly. By 2026, there will be more people aged over 65 than under 18 for the first time in our history. By 2072, the UK is set to have 1.9 people of working age per pensioner, down from 3.3 today. In fact, the workforce is set to start shrinking as of 2040s.”
We worry about AI, but in fact AI is the cavalry in a western - the only force that can save us
Apologies for continually talking to you today, but you keep bringing up salient points and (as you are soon to die in a plane crash) I don't have a lot of time. This is the reason why the Government is importing people like mad, and @rcs1000 did a whole video on aging population, which annoyingly I cannot find.
If you are importing people you need to ensure everyone has somewhere to live.
You can’t continue to cram more and more people into the same number of houses
Good grief. Debbie Stapel, PO Investigator, has just stated openly that the PO and Fujitsu should have acknowledged the Horizon system was faulty, and that it was possible to manually alter branch accounts remotely with Subpostmasters knowing.
They knew this, but they proceeded with prosecutions anyway, and didn't advise the defence lawyers of these obvious and catastrophic flaws.
Surely on that evidence alone, they have to be jailed? The only questions remaining is who exactly, how many and for how long?
They've certainly opened themselves to being sued for malicious prosecution, without any credible defence.
Criminal prosecutions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice are up the the DPP.
Wow. I don’t think “misconduct in a public office” has a max sentence….
It doesn't. I took advice from a prosecuting lawyer on raising this for the campaign I am involved in and was told the police are not very keen unless someone has died (eg Hillsborough), although the PO case does have a very high level of suffering.
I was told if I was interested in pursuing it (I didn't) to contact the local plod. They wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about but would point me in the right direction.
I am aware of an old campaign of individuals who have brought serious complaints to the PHSO where NHS treatment has gone wrong and have felt the PHSO have been guilty of this in their work on their complaints and have tried to get the Met to prosecute and the Met have refused. I have no idea of the merit of the complaints.
There have been suicides in the PO case.
Yes but that is not enough for say corporate manslaughter, as in a train crash where the train company was directly responsible for passengers deaths by gross negligence or a construction company which built a building so poorly it collapsed and killed the residents of it
The copious evidence that management, and lawyers knowingly brought prosecutions on evidence they knew not to be true - and continued to do so over an extended period of time - provides a very strong prima facie case for bringing conspiracy charges.
The individual victims have a similarly strong case to sue the PO in a civil court for malicious prosecution. There's normally a pretty high bar for that, but it seems already to have been cleared.
Could they sue the people responsible for the case individually - I’m not usually a vindictive person but in the case of the PO prosecutors i believe an example should be made
No, a waste of their time and money. The PO can pay real damages.
As far as the individuals are concerned, a high profile civil case would likely increase the call for prosecutions to be brought.
With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
Often that is the case. If you’re an Armenian, in Nagorno Karabakh, a Rohingya in Myanmar, a “Turk” in 1900’s Crete, a “Greek” in Smyrna in 1923 etc., there’s nobody coming to save you.
With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
What does it mean to make the world safe for majorities if you deny their right to remain majorities?
With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
Often that is the case. If you’re an Armenian, in Nagorno Karabakh, a Rohingya in Myanmar, a “Turk” in 1900’s Crete, a “Greek” in Smyrna in 1923 etc., there’s nobody coming to save you.
It has often been the case. Some of your examples are fortunately a century plus old, but, yes, we've seen horrendous events in Nagorno-Karabakh and in Myanmar, and plenty of other examples are possible.
One can see the events in both Nagorno-Karabakh and Myanmar as being driven by a belief in the value of a monoethnic nation state. I'm not certain the solution to cases like Nagorno-Karabakh and Myanmar is to support the idea that the only place you can be safe is in a nation state dominated by your ethnic group. HYUFD's post would seem to suggest that Armenians should leave Nagorno-Karabakh because they will only ever be truly safe in Armenia, and Rohingyas should leave Myanmar because they can never be truly safe there.
I would argue that a modern, rules-based international order that focuses on respect for minorities -- that strives for a situation where minorities can be truly safe -- is a better solution than pushing everyone into majority nation states (and tough luck for any minorities who don't have a nation state).
With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
The "19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos" is a fairly recent invention: 19th or even 20th century IIRC. Prior to that we had Westphalian states (legal countries with peoples and borders), and prior to that we had realms (kings with peoples but not necessarily borders - see empires) and tribes (groups of people with no defined borders)
Happy to be contradicted on this, but I'm pretty sure the concept of a state with legal personality, borders and a multiethnic people is pretty recent (within the last 300? years), and the concept of a state with legal personality, borders and a monoethnic people is also recent, particularly in WW1/aftermath/WW2/aftermath.
Mildly controversial opinion but I've often thought that the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman entities was a slow burn catastrophe for the world. I say "entities" because they did not have to, necessarily, continue as autocratic Empires. Also leaving the Saudis in charge of most of Arabia hasn't really helped.
controversial in what way ?
Certainly the collapse of the A-H empire had disastrous consequences both for its subjects, and for the whole of Europe - but how might it have developed had it not collapsed (and in what circumstances wouldn't it have done so) ?
I don't know enough of the Ottoman Empire to judge - but the late empire genocides on the one hand, and the malign consequences of the post WWI Anglo/French mandate agreements on the other, make it a complicated question.
ETA: careful now. He is still alive and able to sue.
If I understand the BBC report correctly, it says that the Met stated in 2012 that there was "no suggestion" of any relationship between Adams and an informant whose false testimony had cleared him of corruption (the informant being linked to the family of David Norris, one of two men belatedly convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 2012).
But, it says, that statement was made 12 years after a Met report had found that this false testimony must have been the result of the informant being coached by Adams or another officer with the intention of perverting the course of justice.
With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
The "19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos" is a fairly recent invention: 19th or even 20th century IIRC. Prior to that we had Westphalian states (legal countries with peoples and borders), and prior to that we had realms (kings with peoples but not necessarily borders - see empires) and tribes (groups of people with no defined borders)
Happy to be contradicted on this, but I'm pretty sure the concept of a state with legal personality, borders and a multiethnic people is pretty recent (within the last 300? years), and the concept of a state with legal personality, borders and a monoethnic people is also recent, particularly in WW1/aftermath/WW2/aftermath.
Mildly controversial opinion but I've often thought that the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman entities was a slow burn catastrophe for the world. I say "entities" because they did not have to, necessarily, continue as autocratic Empires. Also leaving the Saudis in charge of most of Arabia hasn't really helped.
I'm sure I remember an account of a leader of one of the various nationalist groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire coming to regret its dissolution later in life. It might have been in The Sleepwalkers or perhaps 1913.
Sunak might appoint Claire Coutinho as CotE before the next election in order to prevent Rachel Reeves from being the first female holder of the office, according to a pundit on Newsnight last night. Plausible scenario.
If that's true, then it would appear that Sunak thinks the Tories have absolutely no chance of winning the GE.
Probably true. I think Jeremy Hunt may decide to stand down as chancellor at any time in the near future.
A terrifying short thread on Ageing Britain (and the ageing world, for that matter)
“Britain is ageing, rapidly. By 2026, there will be more people aged over 65 than under 18 for the first time in our history. By 2072, the UK is set to have 1.9 people of working age per pensioner, down from 3.3 today. In fact, the workforce is set to start shrinking as of 2040s.”
We worry about AI, but in fact AI is the cavalry in a western - the only force that can save us
Apologies for continually talking to you today, but you keep bringing up salient points and (as you are soon to die in a plane crash) I don't have a lot of time. This is the reason why the Government is importing people like mad, and @rcs1000 did a whole video on aging population, which annoyingly I cannot find.
If you are importing people you need to ensure everyone has somewhere to live.
You can’t continue to cram more and more people into the same number of houses
Hamas and the IDF are two cheeks of the same fetid arse.
That's quite a crass comparison. I don't for one moment believe they 'deliberately' ran her over; those beasts are rather lumbering and have quite poor views (even in a 'normal', unarmoured bulldozer). She put herself into danger, thinking Arthur Dent had a good idea. It shouldn't have happened, but you don't much about around heavy machinery.
Whereas the people killed by Hamas were killed as part of a mass atrocity. There is a *massive* difference.
Incidentally, there was an interesting article many, many moons ago called something like "A tale of two Rachels." It was about the way Rachel Corrie was celebrated and mourned, whilst another Rachel, blown up by a Palestinian bomber on a bus, was forgotten.
Comments
🚨Exclusive
Keir Starmer is preparing to sack any Labour shadow minister who backs the ceasefire amendment tomorrow
Leadership thinks 10+ sackings may be needed
Labour source: “Support for this motion is not compatible with serving on the front bench”
The PO can pay real damages.
As far as the individuals are concerned, a high profile civil case would likely increase the call for prosecutions to be brought.
Wonder if this might push Corbyn towards a London run?
How many of the last new party got elected?
"Another screening by Israeli authorities for foreign journalists. Here’s what we saw and heard:"
https://twitter.com/mrconfino/status/1724385046583234841
NEW THREAD
Although he’s also been quite lucky, that other political events are keeping the Labour civil war off the front pages.
One can see the events in both Nagorno-Karabakh and Myanmar as being driven by a belief in the value of a monoethnic nation state. I'm not certain the solution to cases like Nagorno-Karabakh and Myanmar is to support the idea that the only place you can be safe is in a nation state dominated by your ethnic group. HYUFD's post would seem to suggest that Armenians should leave Nagorno-Karabakh because they will only ever be truly safe in Armenia, and Rohingyas should leave Myanmar because they can never be truly safe there.
I would argue that a modern, rules-based international order that focuses on respect for minorities -- that strives for a situation where minorities can be truly safe -- is a better solution than pushing everyone into majority nation states (and tough luck for any minorities who don't have a nation state).
Certainly the collapse of the A-H empire had disastrous consequences both for its subjects, and for the whole of Europe - but how might it have developed had it not collapsed (and in what circumstances wouldn't it have done so) ?
I don't know enough of the Ottoman Empire to judge - but the late empire genocides on the one hand, and the malign consequences of the post WWI Anglo/French mandate agreements on the other, make it a complicated question.
But, it says, that statement was made 12 years after a Met report had found that this false testimony must have been the result of the informant being coached by Adams or another officer with the intention of perverting the course of justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
Hamas and the IDF are two cheeks of the same fetid arse.
Whereas the people killed by Hamas were killed as part of a mass atrocity. There is a *massive* difference.
Incidentally, there was an interesting article many, many moons ago called something like "A tale of two Rachels." It was about the way Rachel Corrie was celebrated and mourned, whilst another Rachel, blown up by a Palestinian bomber on a bus, was forgotten.