32k+ people voted for that moron Peter Bone? This country is indeed going to the dogs. I mean, jeez.
They voted for the Conservative candidate.
Wellingborough isn't a seat Labour can take without thousands and thousands of Conservative voters sitting on their hands.
But, I expect them to do so.
Wellingborough voted Lab in 97, I think?
The sort of seat which votes massively Conservative when Lab is unelectable. Not massively wealthy. Not maasively anything, really. Middle England redux. Massively motivated to keep the liked of Corbyn, or even Miliband out. But few obvious reasons to vote the Tory candidate in if Labour are sane.
Has the railway through Wellingborough been electrified yet?
The electrification of Northamptonshire
We could turn it into an opera if we all pulled together as a team.
My flight tomorrow has been cancelled. So my rebook has given me eight hours in Amsterdam. Shall I do the traditional PB thing and ask for recommendations to while away those unexpected short notice hours?
probably gives you 4 hours or so in Amsterdam - give yourself at least 2 and a half hours to get back from Amsterdam and get back into the airport - security can be a mare at Schiphol and its bad enough when you have priority...
My flight tomorrow has been cancelled. So my rebook has given me eight hours in Amsterdam. Shall I do the traditional PB thing and ask for recommendations to while away those unexpected short notice hours?
I hear heroin and microwave rice are both fab on the third go.
32k+ people voted for that moron Peter Bone? This country is indeed going to the dogs. I mean, jeez.
They voted for the Conservative candidate.
Wellingborough isn't a seat Labour can take without thousands and thousands of Conservative voters sitting on their hands.
But, I expect them to do so.
Wellingborough voted Lab in 97, I think?
The sort of seat which votes massively Conservative when Lab is unelectable. Not massively wealthy. Not maasively anything, really. Middle England redux. Massively motivated to keep the liked of Corbyn, or even Miliband out. But few obvious reasons to vote the Tory candidate in if Labour are sane.
And in 2001 too. Was an ultra marginal both times. Incidentally. I didn't realise Bone only became an MP in 2005. I thought he was one of those who'd always been there.
32k+ people voted for that moron Peter Bone? This country is indeed going to the dogs. I mean, jeez.
They voted for the Conservative candidate.
Wellingborough isn't a seat Labour can take without thousands and thousands of Conservative voters sitting on their hands.
But, I expect them to do so.
Wellingborough voted Lab in 97, I think?
The sort of seat which votes massively Conservative when Lab is unelectable. Not massively wealthy. Not maasively anything, really. Middle England redux. Massively motivated to keep the liked of Corbyn, or even Miliband out. But few obvious reasons to vote the Tory candidate in if Labour are sane.
Has the railway through Wellingborough been electrified yet?
Yes it has. Trains to Corby via Wellingborough and Kettering are now electrified.
Corby is one of the few stations to reopen twice. It was originally closed in 1966. Then reopened in around 1987 as a branch from Kettering. That didn't work so it closed. Subsequently it has reopened and has two trains an hour from London.
Maybe instead of non-criminal law silks grandiosely announcing their refusal to prosecute certain types of crime, they should just concentrate on not derailing murder trials with contemptuous Twitter outbursts.
32k+ people voted for that moron Peter Bone? This country is indeed going to the dogs. I mean, jeez.
They voted for the Conservative candidate.
Wellingborough isn't a seat Labour can take without thousands and thousands of Conservative voters sitting on their hands.
But, I expect them to do so.
Wellingborough voted Lab in 97, I think?
The sort of seat which votes massively Conservative when Lab is unelectable. Not massively wealthy. Not maasively anything, really. Middle England redux. Massively motivated to keep the liked of Corbyn, or even Miliband out. But few obvious reasons to vote the Tory candidate in if Labour are sane.
Has the railway through Wellingborough been electrified yet?
The electrification of Northamptonshire
We could turn it into an opera if we all pulled together as a team.
32k+ people voted for that moron Peter Bone? This country is indeed going to the dogs. I mean, jeez.
They voted for the Conservative candidate.
Wellingborough isn't a seat Labour can take without thousands and thousands of Conservative voters sitting on their hands.
But, I expect them to do so.
Wellingborough voted Lab in 97, I think?
The sort of seat which votes massively Conservative when Lab is unelectable. Not massively wealthy. Not maasively anything, really. Middle England redux. Massively motivated to keep the liked of Corbyn, or even Miliband out. But few obvious reasons to vote the Tory candidate in if Labour are sane.
Has the railway through Wellingborough been electrified yet?
Yes it has. Trains to Corby via Wellingborough and Kettering are now electrified.
Corby is one of the few stations to reopen twice. It was originally closed in 1966. Then reopened in around 1987 as a branch from Kettering. That didn't work so it closed. Subsequently it has reopened and has two trains an hour from London.
D'oh! Of course it's been electrified - I even went to Corby back in March!
I was actually thinking of the line through Market Harborough and beyond!
No sign of that being electrified. I believe it was proposed once.
Maybe Keir and Rachel will electrify it to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. But LAB's record on electrifying railways isn't brilliant 😡
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Anyways. Last day in the office before Christmas, and reflection on what we have achieved in the year: these are not people I have known for anything like as long but whom I am still lucky to know and work with. O-o-o is on and timesheet is done. And you know, I'm lucky enough to quite like my job. Then annual night out with three friends I have known for over 30 years. The fact that we should do this more often doesn't devalue that we do it at all. And then arrive home to find the snapfish calendar of family photos I'd ordered for my parents has arrived. And also the news that my brother-in-law's partner is going to be induced tomorrow and it looks like a new niece before Christmas.
"See how we yawn, at your bile and your scorn It's a beautiful day, peace on earth has been played Make a noise with your toys, and ignore the killjoys Cos it's cliched to be cynical at Christmas" https://youtu.be/cxqQtUQErhQ?si=2FSz2Kljcp7I7QAn
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
This of course places teachers in a difficult situation. Even more so if it is a TA or lunch supervisor. They'll have no idea what the home situation is. And often will be asked not to disclose to teachers the student doesn't trust.
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Like when doctors were required to tell parents their daughters were on the pill. Not a good idea at all.
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
This of course places teachers in a difficult situation. Even more so if it is a TA or lunch supervisor. They'll have no idea what the home situation is. And often will be asked not to disclose to teachers the student doesn't trust.
It's for now only guidance, and this is I think only a draft out for consultation.
The better managed schools will already have their own guidance which takes these issues more seriously.
Rishi's cunning new plan to win back voters in the redwall? Playing chess with under 10s in the No 10 garden and telling them where they are going wrong?
I play chess competitively, in leagues and in tournaments. I recently set a new personal "best" when I lost to an 8-year-old (previous "best" was losing to a 10-year-old). The following morning before the next round he showed me, very politely, where I had gone wrong.
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Bit of a logical leap there by the Guardian (or the pressure group).
39%/37% of young adults being understandably nervous about disclosing a major personal decision to their families does not in any way imply those individuals are “at risk of harm”
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the relevant combatant commander would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so. (FWIW the chain is from the President to the SecDef to the combatant commander but I’ve ignored that link on the assumption that SecDef would be a Trump appointment)
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Because the order has been given by the CiC and will be executed in good faith.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Because the order has been given by the CiC and will be executed in good faith.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
It wouldn’t have been given within the chain of command. Within the military protocols exist for a reason.
If the President, for example, personally ordered a Lieutenant to arrest President Obama then I would be stunned if the Lieutenant did not seek guidance from his CO. And so on until it was escalated to the combatant commander (a 4* rank).
You are simply making an alarmist assertion based on a faulty understanding of the way the military works.
An interesting thing that hadn't occured to me before. Because of the Greek alphabet being indecipherable to non Greeks English is ubiquitous. It is virtually a first language. All announcements in museums and on transport are spoken in English and Greek. Even the Restaurants have an English and Greek name.
It reminds me of a Japanese girl I met in France who wrote a poscard home. All squiggles until the last line which said 'JAPAN' I asked her why and she said otherwise it wouldn't get out of France
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Bit of a logical leap there by the Guardian (or the pressure group).
39%/37% of young adults being understandably nervous about disclosing a major personal decision to their families does not in any way imply those individuals are “at risk of harm”
So you would out a gay child to their parents without their consent: indeed, against their expressed wish?
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Because the order has been given by the CiC and will be executed in good faith.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
It wouldn’t have been given within the chain of command. Within the military protocols exist for a reason.
If the President, for example, personally ordered a Lieutenant to arrest President Obama then I would be stunned if the Lieutenant did not seek guidance from his CO. And so on until it was escalated to the combatant commander (a 4* rank).
You are simply making an alarmist assertion based on a faulty understanding of the way the military works.
I may be wrong here, but I though POTUS could do that. In the UK, the PM cannot give military orders: every instruction (except one?[1]) has to go thru the top-level military folk and the PM isn't in the chain of command. UK troops don't salute the PM (am I wrong here?) but US troops do.
[1] Weirdly, I think the PM can order a nuke launch without going thru a general or whatever
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Because the order has been given by the CiC and will be executed in good faith.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
It wouldn’t have been given within the chain of command. Within the military protocols exist for a reason.
If the President, for example, personally ordered a Lieutenant to arrest President Obama then I would be stunned if the Lieutenant did not seek guidance from his CO. And so on until it was escalated to the combatant commander (a 4* rank).
You are simply making an alarmist assertion based on a faulty understanding of the way the military works.
I may be wrong here, but I though POTUS could do that. In the UK, the PM cannot give military orders: every instruction (except one?[1]) has to go thru the top-level military folk and the PM isn't in the chain of command. UK troops don't salute the PM (am I wrong here?) but US troops do.
[1] Weirdly, I think the PM can order a nuke launch without going thru a general or whatever
Scratch that: I've read your points above. Does the POTUS->SecDef->Theater commander chain mean that Trump cannot issue an order to, say, a Private?
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Bit of a logical leap there by the Guardian (or the pressure group).
39%/37% of young adults being understandably nervous about disclosing a major personal decision to their families does not in any way imply those individuals are “at risk of harm”
So you would out a gay child to their parents without their consent: indeed, against their expressed wish?
That’s not what I was saying.
I was saying the argument was structurally flawed.
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Because the order has been given by the CiC and will be executed in good faith.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
It wouldn’t have been given within the chain of command. Within the military protocols exist for a reason.
If the President, for example, personally ordered a Lieutenant to arrest President Obama then I would be stunned if the Lieutenant did not seek guidance from his CO. And so on until it was escalated to the combatant commander (a 4* rank).
You are simply making an alarmist assertion based on a faulty understanding of the way the military works.
I may be wrong here, but I though POTUS could do that. In the UK, the PM cannot give military orders: every instruction (except one?[1]) has to go thru the top-level military folk and the PM isn't in the chain of command. UK troops don't salute the PM (am I wrong here?) but US troops do.
[1] Weirdly, I think the PM can order a nuke launch without going thru a general or whatever
Scratch that: I've read your points above. Does the POTUS->SecDef->Theater commander chain mean that Trump cannot issue an order to, say, a Private?
He could issue an order, but if it was controversial then I would expect that guidance would be sought. No private would take the flak.
In the example above I would expect Obama to comply but by the time he arrived in custody it would be escalated.
I hear that TfL have received HS2 funding to extend the No. 38 bus route, which currently runs from Victoria Station to Stoke Newington, all the way up to Watford.
Part of the Network North initiative.
Just seen my first Superloop bus, an express bus serving North Finchley from areas around the capital. Launched a fortnight ago Google tells me
And it’s taken that long just to get to North Finchley….
An interesting thing that hadn't occured to me before. Because of the Greek alphabet being indecipherable to non Greeks English is ubiquitous. It is virtually a first language. All announcements in museums and on transport are spoken in English and Greek. Even the Restaurants have an English and Greek name.
It reminds me of a Japanese girl I met in France who wrote a poscard home. All squiggles until the last line which said 'JAPAN' I asked her why and she said otherwise it wouldn't get out of France
Announcements on Greek transport etc. are in English because their alphabet is different? Err, right.
Economic sentiment also seems to be getting a bit better, although self-reported belief about the economy is still way more negative than you'd think from actual economic indicators, people's reporting about their own situation, or the way they're spending their money.
One theory is that opinion about inflation going down lags inflation going down, so the improvement that happened in the first 6 months of the year is only just feeding through.
32k+ people voted for that moron Peter Bone? This country is indeed going to the dogs. I mean, jeez.
They voted for the Conservative candidate.
Wellingborough isn't a seat Labour can take without thousands and thousands of Conservative voters sitting on their hands.
But, I expect them to do so.
Wellingborough voted Lab in 97, I think?
The sort of seat which votes massively Conservative when Lab is unelectable. Not massively wealthy. Not maasively anything, really. Middle England redux. Massively motivated to keep the liked of Corbyn, or even Miliband out. But few obvious reasons to vote the Tory candidate in if Labour are sane.
Has the railway through Wellingborough been electrified yet?
Yes it has. Trains to Corby via Wellingborough and Kettering are now electrified.
Corby is one of the few stations to reopen twice. It was originally closed in 1966. Then reopened in around 1987 as a branch from Kettering. That didn't work so it closed. Subsequently it has reopened and has two trains an hour from London.
D'oh! Of course it's been electrified - I even went to Corby back in March!
I was actually thinking of the line through Market Harborough and beyond!
No sign of that being electrified. I believe it was proposed once.
Maybe Keir and Rachel will electrify it to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. But LAB's record on electrifying railways isn't brilliant 😡
Economic sentiment also seems to be getting a bit better, although self-reported belief about the economy is still way more negative than you'd think from actual economic indicators, people's reporting about their own situation, or the way they're spending their money.
One theory is that opinion about inflation going down lags inflation going down, so the improvement that happened in the first 6 months of the year is only just feeding through.
Against that, PMIs are worsening, and suggest an imminent US recession.
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Bit of a logical leap there by the Guardian (or the pressure group).
39%/37% of young adults being understandably nervous about disclosing a major personal decision to their families does not in any way imply those individuals are “at risk of harm”
I think you need to reread what's written, and revisit your own logic. You're making your own assumptions.
Economic sentiment also seems to be getting a bit better, although self-reported belief about the economy is still way more negative than you'd think from actual economic indicators, people's reporting about their own situation, or the way they're spending their money.
One theory is that opinion about inflation going down lags inflation going down, so the improvement that happened in the first 6 months of the year is only just feeding through.
Against that, PMIs are worsening, and suggest an imminent US recession.
They've been unusually low for quite some time considering continuing economic growth.
The consensus (who knows if it will be right) is for a soft landing rather than recession. If that's the case, then the much criticised Fed - and the administration - deserve much credit.
Further to the earlier discussion on internal threats to the US, here’s a Berkeley professor calling for an intifada in America. The focus on the far-right ignores the growing radicalisation of the left against western states. https://x.com/shaidavidai/status/1737512500986290596
Posted on official DfT X account. I know... I was also looking for the indications of it being a spoof.
That, literally, as in my back hurts, made me fall of my chair. It's real? What idiots. What absolute morons.
The more I look at it the more I wonder which person in the DfT social media team is a Labour supporter because outside London that post is worth 1,000s of votes
While I agree with the sentiment, this illustrates a bugbear of mine about modern journalism: the headline that tells you how to feel about the thing (or how others are feeling about the thing, inviting you to join in) before telling you the thing.
See also:
* "Fear of". Polls of people's fears of a thing, instead of the actual thing * "Outrage by". People are outraged by a thing. * "Why we love X". We do? Really?
* "Calls for". I frequently "call for" free ice-cream. It does not eventuate...
The bit I don't understand is how some left- wing lone wolf bullsh*tter is more dangerous for @williamglenn than a President who with the backing of the Republican Party, has carefully explained how he plans to turn the World's biggest democracy into Putin's Russia.
He hasn't carefully explained any such thing and he wouldn't have the constitutional or institutional power even if he wanted to.
To take one example, think of the way Putin treated Khodorkovsky. Do you seriously have visions of Trump doing something similar?
I expect Trump to punish political opponents this time around. I expect Trump to ensure a third term and I suspect he will be comfortable to use methods irreconcilable with democracy to achieve this. I expect the scapegoating of racial groups, and I expect Trump as Commander in Chief to utilise the military under his command to escalate unrest. He is venal, narcissistic and dangerous.
Now you will counter this by retorting,"he didn't do this first time around". But after he lost an election he was convinced he would win that is exactly what he tried to do. He attempted with violence to reverse the democratic will of the people.
Now, that Laffer Curve...
He can only do that if the military support him (assuming he is elected again next year too and not in jail). In Jan 2021 US generals did not support his attempt to throw out the EC results
If he is elected CiC. It would be mutiny to disobey the President.
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
UCMJ91 only covers *lawful* orders. Specifically under UCMJ92 a dereliction of duty charge would require that the order had a valid military purpose.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the Chiefs would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so.
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
Why do you people assume protocols will be followed by Trump?
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
And why do you think an officer would obey an order that was outwith the established protocols?
Because the order has been given by the CiC and will be executed in good faith.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
It wouldn’t have been given within the chain of command. Within the military protocols exist for a reason.
If the President, for example, personally ordered a Lieutenant to arrest President Obama then I would be stunned if the Lieutenant did not seek guidance from his CO. And so on until it was escalated to the combatant commander (a 4* rank).
You are simply making an alarmist assertion based on a faulty understanding of the way the military works.
I may be wrong here, but I though POTUS could do that. In the UK, the PM cannot give military orders: every instruction (except one?[1]) has to go thru the top-level military folk and the PM isn't in the chain of command. UK troops don't salute the PM (am I wrong here?) but US troops do.
[1] Weirdly, I think the PM can order a nuke launch without going thru a general or whatever
Scratch that: I've read your points above. Does the POTUS->SecDef->Theater commander chain mean that Trump cannot issue an order to, say, a Private?
He could issue an order, but if it was controversial then I would expect that guidance would be sought. No private would take the flak.
In the example above I would expect Obama to comply but by the time he arrived in custody it would be escalated.
He's not going to start out like that, though ? The plan is first to dramatically change the civil service. The very well funded coterie around him have been working for years on lists if loyalists to be appointed in senior positions after mass firings.
Law enforcement will be next. The military would take longer.
You're right that the system has considerable built in protections, but with a majority in both Houses of Congress, and a Supreme Court at least partly inside, much is possible for a president who is determined to overthrow the constitutional order.
An interesting thing that hadn't occured to me before. Because of the Greek alphabet being indecipherable to non Greeks English is ubiquitous. It is virtually a first language. All announcements in museums and on transport are spoken in English and Greek. Even the Restaurants have an English and Greek name.
It reminds me of a Japanese girl I met in France who wrote a poscard home. All squiggles until the last line which said 'JAPAN' I asked her why and she said otherwise it wouldn't get out of France
Announcements on Greek transport etc. are in English because their alphabet is different? Err, right.
Isn't Roger a spoof account? All his posts are 100% ridiculous. Nobody could be that silly.
Restaurants in Greece do not usually have "an English and a Greek name". Maybe Roger means the signs are written in the Greek alphabet and in Latin script. Though in tourist areas often only in Latin script.
English is no more a second language in Greece than it is in many other European countries which don't have their own alphabets. If more Greeks than Italians speak English it's mainly because Greece is so heavily dependent on tourism.
Also weird that someone who claims to spend a lot of time abroad has never noticed that it is normal when addressing something to another country to write the name of the destination country in the language you are posting from.
An interesting thing that hadn't occured to me before. Because of the Greek alphabet being indecipherable to non Greeks English is ubiquitous. It is virtually a first language. All announcements in museums and on transport are spoken in English and Greek. Even the Restaurants have an English and Greek name.
It reminds me of a Japanese girl I met in France who wrote a poscard home. All squiggles until the last line which said 'JAPAN' I asked her why and she said otherwise it wouldn't get out of France
Announcements on Greek transport etc. are in English because their alphabet is different? Err, right.
Isn't Roger a spoof account? All his posts are 100% ridiculous. Nobody could be that silly.
Restaurants in Greece do not usually have "an English and a Greek name". Maybe Roger means the signs are written in the Greek alphabet and in Latin script. Though in tourist areas often only in Latin script.
English is no more a second language in Greece than it is in many other European countries which don't have their own alphabets. If more Greeks than Italians speak English it's mainly because Greece is so heavily dependent on tourism.
Also weird that someone who claims to spend a lot of time abroad has never noticed that it is normal when addressing something to another country to write the name of the destination country in the language you are posting from.
Exactly. It’s a small country whose language isn’t widely spoken abroad, not even in neighbouring countries. Like the Netherlands, or Norway (which does have partial intelligibility with Danish). In both of the latter, English is extraordinarily widely understood (such that TV and radio interviews of English speakers don’t even bother with dubbing or subtitles) and their languages both use normal actual letters that people can read.
An interesting thing that hadn't occured to me before. Because of the Greek alphabet being indecipherable to non Greeks English is ubiquitous. It is virtually a first language. All announcements in museums and on transport are spoken in English and Greek. Even the Restaurants have an English and Greek name.
It reminds me of a Japanese girl I met in France who wrote a poscard home. All squiggles until the last line which said 'JAPAN' I asked her why and she said otherwise it wouldn't get out of France
Announcements on Greek transport etc. are in English because their alphabet is different? Err, right.
Isn't Roger a spoof account? All his posts are 100% ridiculous. Nobody could be that silly.
Restaurants in Greece do not usually have "an English and a Greek name". Maybe Roger means the signs are written in the Greek alphabet and in Latin script. Though in tourist areas often only in Latin script.
English is no more a second language in Greece than it is in many other European countries which don't have their own alphabets. If more Greeks than Italians speak English it's mainly because Greece is so heavily dependent on tourism.
Also weird that someone who claims to spend a lot of time abroad has never noticed that it is normal when addressing something to another country to write the name of the destination country in the language you are posting from.
Sorry drunk in Athens is my excuse! I had been recommended a fine restaurant in a street full of restaurants. There were no signs by which I could identify my restaurant. I was told it had been called 'The Swordfish'. When I finally found my restaurant I asked the waiter how someone unfamiliar with the Alphabet could glean 'Swordfish'? He said you couldn't because that isn't even an accurate translation but as Athens is now virtually bi-lingual it didn't really matter and indeed it very obviously is.
'Schools in England could face legal action if they follow new guidance on how to treat transgender children, ministers’ own lawyers have reportedly warned.
Advice issued prior to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, and the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, publishing draft guidance to schools and colleges which said they had no duty to allow students to “socially transition”, warns of significant legal risks if they follow it.'
"Do what government says; get sued" is the message. A lovely example of an important fact, one which this government and many MPs are blind to. Everything government says and all that parliament enacts is part of an 800 year old matrix of interlocking webs involving everything they, and the courts, have ever decided, said or enacted before. As they will further discover if they ever get the Rwanda (Paddington Deportation) Bill into law.
This crops up a lot. Rwanda being the obvious case. I don't think the party gets on a gut level that they have to act within the law. If the law prevents them, then the proper procedure is to change the law, not issue statements saying they really mean it.
What is missed in this debate is that schools have an overriding safeguarding duty with regard to the children in their care and there are numerous laws, rules and government guidance which they must follow. That safeguarding obligation applies to children exhibiting gender distress. This guidance needs to be put in the context of this overriding duty and all the other applicable laws and guidelines. It is not something to be viewed in isolation and there is no automatic course of action to be followed in all cases given schools duties to all the children in their care.
Those who claim that you must either do this or not do that do not understand what safeguarding really means and do children a disservice. I have just completed my Level 3 DSL training and there is a lot to learn and think about. From my initial review of the guidance and advice from an equality lawyer friend of mine this guidance seems to comply with the law but it needs careful review. What it does not need is a load of activists, whatever their views, seeking to use children for their own agendas.
The Guardian reporting on the guidance is actually pretty good, and fairly explicit about safeguarding issues. Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say ...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
Bit of a logical leap there by the Guardian (or the pressure group).
39%/37% of young adults being understandably nervous about disclosing a major personal decision to their families does not in any way imply those individuals are “at risk of harm”
I think you need to reread what's written, and revisit your own logic. You're making your own assumptions.
Nope.
They have said
* this is a problem (it may well be, I don’t know) * Here is a related piece of data that sounds bad * By implication A is proved by B
Comments
Nothing wrong with Philip Glass. He doesn't fill the bar at the concert hall, unlike some other modern rubbish...
But 2005 was actually quite a long time ago now.
Maybe Keir and Rachel will electrify it to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. But LAB's record on electrifying railways isn't brilliant 😡
Rather more so than the draft guidance itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/what-does-the-trans-guidance-for-englands-schools-say
...The guidance says that parents should almost always be told if their child talks to a teacher about things like a desire to change their pronouns or name, or to dress differently at school, and says that there is almost never a risk of harm in doing so. But that is not a given among trans people. Earlier this year, research conducted for the charity Just Like Us found that more than a third of non-binary (39%) and transgender (37%) young adults said they were not confident they would be accepted when they came out. It also found that 19% of transgender people and 23% of non-binary people were not close to members of their immediate family.
That is by no means a majority of cases – but nor is it “exceptionally rare”. Teachers quoted in this Observer piece from April presented a similar picture. One deputy head of sixth form said: “We’ve had threats of violence towards students from parents. We’ve had students who aren’t safe to go home and have to stay at friend’s houses because parents have found out they are gay or suspect they are identifying as another gender.” The guidance leaves the question of what constitutes “a significant risk of harm” unanswered...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-qYSDgg38&t=1s
Last day in the office before Christmas, and reflection on what we have achieved in the year: these are not people I have known for anything like as long but whom I am still lucky to know and work with. O-o-o is on and timesheet is done. And you know, I'm lucky enough to quite like my job.
Then annual night out with three friends I have known for over 30 years. The fact that we should do this more often doesn't devalue that we do it at all.
And then arrive home to find the snapfish calendar of family photos I'd ordered for my parents has arrived.
And also the news that my brother-in-law's partner is going to be induced tomorrow and it looks like a new niece before Christmas.
"See how we yawn, at your bile and your scorn
It's a beautiful day, peace on earth has been played
Make a noise with your toys, and ignore the killjoys
Cos it's cliched to be cynical at Christmas"
https://youtu.be/cxqQtUQErhQ?si=2FSz2Kljcp7I7QAn
Which is all
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/times-front-page-2023-12-21/
"On the first day of Christmas my true love sent to me
A contract for a bunch of PPE...."
The better managed schools will already have their own guidance which takes these issues more seriously.
https://www.time1075.net/173289-2-upminster-company-vip-ppe-contracts/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4681384/Michelle-Mone-puts-seven-bed-luxury-villa-sale.html
The following morning before the next round he showed me, very politely, where I had gone wrong.
39%/37% of young adults being understandably nervous about disclosing a major personal decision to their families does not in any way imply those individuals are “at risk of harm”
January 6th 2021 was a disorganised shambles. There was as far as I am aware no direct order to arrest Pence for example. A lynch-mob undertook that task.
If Trump directly orders the Generals to arrest the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and take them directly to Leavenworth for court-martial and execution that is what they are obliged to do.
Of course any organisation is only as effective as the most senior figures: one would hope that the relevant combatant commander would refuse an order of this nature and, if pressed, resign and publicly state why they did so. (FWIW the chain is from the President to the SecDef to the combatant commander but I’ve ignored that link on the assumption that SecDef would be a Trump appointment)
It would be harder, in practice, for a more junior officer to reject an order but they are unlikely to receive such an order outside of the chain of command and, if they did, then they would likely be challenged by colleagues.
He couldn't give a shiny one for the constitution or military etiquette.
Equally, at least almost 50% will be on board with Trump.
If the President, for example, personally ordered a Lieutenant to arrest President Obama then I would be stunned if the Lieutenant did not seek guidance from his CO. And so on until it was escalated to the combatant commander (a 4* rank).
You are simply making an alarmist assertion based on a faulty understanding of the way the military works.
It reminds me of a Japanese girl I met in France who wrote a poscard home. All squiggles until the last line which said 'JAPAN' I asked her why and she said otherwise it wouldn't get out of France
[1] Weirdly, I think the PM can order a nuke launch without going thru a general or whatever
I was saying the argument was structurally flawed.
In the example above I would expect Obama to comply but by the time he arrived in custody it would be escalated.
Trump 44
Haley 30
Christie 12
DeSantis 6
Ramaswamy 5
If Christie supporters switch to Haley then she she really could have a chance.
New Hampshire - Saint Anselm has Biden +10 (2020: Biden +7)
National - YouGov has it tied
National - Quinnipiac has Biden +2 or Trump +2 depending on minor party candidates.
Is this polling (and the NH Primary polling) the first hint that Trump's position might be starting to look less rock solid?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
Graph linked from Joe Weisenthal's newsletter:
https://civiqs.com/results/economy_us_now?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true
One theory is that opinion about inflation going down lags inflation going down, so the improvement that happened in the first 6 months of the year is only just feeding through.
https://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/articles/midland-mainline-electrification-continues-significant-upgrades-scheduled
You're making your own assumptions.
The consensus (who knows if it will be right) is for a soft landing rather than recession. If that's the case, then the much criticised Fed - and the administration - deserve much credit.
The plan is first to dramatically change the civil service. The very well funded coterie around him have been working for years on lists if loyalists to be appointed in senior positions after mass firings.
Law enforcement will be next. The military would take longer.
You're right that the system has considerable built in protections, but with a majority in both Houses of Congress, and a Supreme Court at least partly inside, much is possible for a president who is determined to overthrow the constitutional order.
Restaurants in Greece do not usually have "an English and a Greek name". Maybe Roger means the signs are written in the Greek alphabet and in Latin script. Though in tourist areas often only in Latin script.
English is no more a second language in Greece than it is in many other European countries which don't have their own alphabets. If more Greeks than Italians speak English it's mainly because Greece is so heavily dependent on tourism.
Also weird that someone who claims to spend a lot of time abroad has never noticed that it is normal when addressing something to another country to write the name of the destination country in the language you are posting from.
They have said
* this is a problem (it may well be, I don’t know)
* Here is a related piece of data that sounds bad
* By implication A is proved by B
That’s a fallacy