If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
You know a project is a complete basketcase when every option, from cancelling, to expanding, to amending, will still result in a spiralling set of expensive problems.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
You know a project is a complete basketcase when every option, from cancelling, to expanding, to amending, will still result in a spiralling set of expensive problems.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
We actually don’t yet know that. It’s possible you’re right (and I also strongly criticised the decision), but the appeal court are hearing the case in early January, and it’s also quite possible that they find against Trump, and the SC refuses his subsequent appeal.
I don’t think any US legal commentators know which way it will go.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
As with morphine and other prescribed drugs those that have authorisation to hold it will no doubt be very closely regulated. But possession by a non medical practitioner in a pub or night club is preparatory steps towards rape and should be treated as such. There is no excuse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
There was a lot of weird complacency last time that it all worked out in the end, so no problem. But in 2024 a majority of one party believe the last election was stolen and defend the people who tried to overturn that election through baseless lawsuits and even violence. That immediately means many more people will be mentally prepared to aid in efforts to overturn results they do not like than last time, when a vestigial old guard held firm and said that was a step too far.
And on the Democrat side of things that genuine risk from the GOP no longer supporting democracy has to have at least a few more of them questioning what they would also be willing to do if, as is perfectly possible, Trump actually scrapes wins in key states. Legal challenges to be sure, though whether they will be as baseless we shall see.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
You know a project is a complete basketcase when every option, from cancelling, to expanding, to amending, will still result in a spiralling set of expensive problems.
Remind me of who was President when the US invaded Iraq?
I rephrased it from 'neocon' because it was a cross-party consensus.
I've rephrased this season from 'winter' to 'summer' because the sun came out for 30 seconds this morning.
Taking the two interventions, Iraq was under Bush/Blair and Libya was under Obama/Cameron so you've got the full spectrum of US/UK parties.
And yet you chose to class them as 'liberal imperial wars', not 'conservative imperial wars' or 'conservative/liberal imperial wars', or even just 'wars'.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
As with morphine and other prescribed drugs those that have authorisation to hold it will no doubt be very closely regulated. But possession by a non medical practitioner in a pub or night club is preparatory steps towards rape and should be treated as such. There is no excuse.
So a person has a prescription for it legitimately, he is in a pub....prep for rape or not?
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
Remind me of who was President when the US invaded Iraq?
I rephrased it from 'neocon' because it was a cross-party consensus.
I've rephrased this season from 'winter' to 'summer' because the sun came out for 30 seconds this morning.
Taking the two interventions, Iraq was under Bush/Blair and Libya was under Obama/Cameron so you've got the full spectrum of US/UK parties.
And yet you chose to class them as 'liberal imperial wars', not 'conservative imperial wars' or 'conservative/liberal imperial wars', or even just 'wars'.
"Liberal imperialism" is a thing. Spreading democracy etc.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
As with morphine and other prescribed drugs those that have authorisation to hold it will no doubt be very closely regulated. But possession by a non medical practitioner in a pub or night club is preparatory steps towards rape and should be treated as such. There is no excuse.
So a person has a prescription for it legitimately, he is in a pub....prep for rape or not?
Quote "Who abuses Rohypnol? Teenagers and young adults, primarily individuals aged 13 to 30, are the principal users of Rohypnol, and most users are male. The drug is popular on high school and college campuses and at raves and nightclubs.
Rohypnol use among high school students is a particular problem. Nearly 2 percent of high school seniors in the United States used Rohypnol at least once in the past year, according to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey."
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Am I the only one who finds it worrying that he appears to have given this a lot of thought?
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
Just goto any banking area most will have sniffles and runny noses from snorting coke....your nose is running here...
Quote "Who abuses Rohypnol? Teenagers and young adults, primarily individuals aged 13 to 30, are the principal users of Rohypnol, and most users are male. The drug is popular on high school and college campuses and at raves and nightclubs.
Rohypnol use among high school students is a particular problem. Nearly 2 percent of high school seniors in the United States used Rohypnol at least once in the past year, according to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey."
You want all those charged with rape because some do use it that way? I suspect the biggest drug involved in rape is alcohol
From my quick researches it is not prescribed in the US either. So it has been obtained illegally. As, of course, are many other drugs but most of those are obtained for self harm rather than the harm of others.
Quote "Who abuses Rohypnol? Teenagers and young adults, primarily individuals aged 13 to 30, are the principal users of Rohypnol, and most users are male. The drug is popular on high school and college campuses and at raves and nightclubs.
Rohypnol use among high school students is a particular problem. Nearly 2 percent of high school seniors in the United States used Rohypnol at least once in the past year, according to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey."
You want all those charged with rape because some do use it that way? I suspect the biggest drug involved in rape is alcohol
From my quick researches it is not prescribed in the US either. So it has been obtained illegally. As, of course, are many other drugs but most of those are obtained for self harm rather than the harm of others.
Yes but you were wanting possession used as evidence of being prepared to rape which is a whole different kettle of fish.
Quote "Who abuses Rohypnol? Teenagers and young adults, primarily individuals aged 13 to 30, are the principal users of Rohypnol, and most users are male. The drug is popular on high school and college campuses and at raves and nightclubs.
Rohypnol use among high school students is a particular problem. Nearly 2 percent of high school seniors in the United States used Rohypnol at least once in the past year, according to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey."
You want all those charged with rape because some do use it that way? I suspect the biggest drug involved in rape is alcohol
From my quick researches it is not prescribed in the US either. So it has been obtained illegally. As, of course, are many other drugs but most of those are obtained for self harm rather than the harm of others.
Yes but you were wanting possession used as evidence of being prepared to rape which is a whole different kettle of fish.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Am I the only one who finds it worrying that he appears to have given this a lot of thought?
I am doing research for when the tax rate becomes a 100% as someone suggested it should be the other night and have to become a criminal
A spokesperson for the home secretary said: “In what was always understood as a private conversation, James, the home secretary, tackling spiking made what was clearly meant to be an ironic joke – for which he apologises.”
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
Also the cliche of it being something that knocks you out almost instantly isn't true
"The use of chloroform as an incapacitating agent has become widely recognized, bordering on cliché, through the adoption by crime fiction authors of plots involving criminals' use of chloroform-soaked rags to render victims unconscious. However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform in this way.[61] It takes at least five minutes of inhalation of chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform involve co-administration of another drug, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being complicit in its administration."
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Am I the only one who finds it worrying that he appears to have given this a lot of thought?
I am doing research for when the tax rate becomes a 100% as someone suggested it should be the other night and have to become a criminal
Who suggested it should become 100%?
(Hint: you need to read my posts again and sharpen up your comprehension skills.)
For avoidance of doubt I do not agree with the non consensual use of drugs for the purposes of sex. I am merely trying to point out that a) there are other options to rohypnol b) most possession of rohypnol legal or otherwise has little to do with rape c) The most common drug involved with rape is alcohol
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Am I the only one who finds it worrying that he appears to have given this a lot of thought?
I am doing research for when the tax rate becomes a 100% as someone suggested it should be the other night and have to become a criminal
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
Just goto any banking area most will have sniffles and runny noses from snorting coke....your nose is running here...
I've found most people blow into hankies in those circumstances.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
Also the cliche of it being something that knocks you out almost instantly isn't true
"The use of chloroform as an incapacitating agent has become widely recognized, bordering on cliché, through the adoption by crime fiction authors of plots involving criminals' use of chloroform-soaked rags to render victims unconscious. However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform in this way.[61] It takes at least five minutes of inhalation of chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform involve co-administration of another drug, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being complicit in its administration."
Knocking someone out swiftly but safely (if for very malignant purposes in that example) turns out to be a tricky business. Presumably why people have to study to do it properly in medical settings.
I would imagine something that makes someone woozy and suggestible would be better for any villainous purpose anyway. Moving bodies is also tough, as James Cleverly might jest.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Am I the only one who finds it worrying that he appears to have given this a lot of thought?
I am doing research for when the tax rate becomes a 100% as someone suggested it should be the other night and have to become a criminal
Who suggested it should become 100%?
(Hint: you need to read my posts again and sharpen up your comprehension skills.)
I didn't claim it was you, but there was someone the other night saying it though might not even have been here I post in other places. I made the point at the time if the governement ever takes 2 out of every 3£ I earn that I may as well become a bandit...pretty sure it was here as seem to remember kinablu retorting I would then be jailed which frankly is a laugh as the police couldn't catch a cold unless it was misgendering people on twitter or doing 30mph in wales
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
I remember my girlfriend of the 1990's passing out twice at Spiritualized gigs. One of them in King Tut's - which is about 20ft/sq. We got a side-eye from Jason Pierce which I took as a badge of honour. In a way.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
For avoidance of doubt I do not agree with the non consensual use of drugs for the purposes of sex. I am merely trying to point out that a) there are other options to rohypnol b) most possession of rohypnol legal or otherwise has little to do with rape c) The most common drug involved with rape is alcohol
It’s never good when you have to start a post with that first sentence…
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
For avoidance of doubt I do not agree with the non consensual use of drugs for the purposes of sex. I am merely trying to point out that a) there are other options to rohypnol b) most possession of rohypnol legal or otherwise has little to do with rape c) The most common drug involved with rape is alcohol
It’s never good when you have to start a post with that first sentence…
Well I made that comment purely because of mr Pointers being suspicious
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I think you are being a little broadbeush.
But there has been a general coarsening of civili society over the last 25 years or so and women are particularly exposed
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
We don’t know it was unanimous - only that there was no published dissent.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I think you are being a little broadbeush.
But there has been a general coarsening of civili society over the last 25 years or so and women are particularly exposed
And how and why has this coarsening of society happened? Who has benefited from it? Who has participated in it?
Because this "coarsening" is not like rain falling out of the sky. It is a result of people choosing to act or not act in certain ways. It would be instructive to look at who and why.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
However I would suggest as a counterpoint that PB is reasonably representative of a cross section of male attitude in this country and overwhelmingly (with a few notable exceptions) discusses women and female issues generally with a reasonable amount of decorum and does not show contempt for women. I don't actually think PB is exceptional in this amongst the population in general. Not seeing much defence of Cleverly on here tonight.
What I do think is that there are certain institutions and a certain class of men who are in priveledged positions and who treat everyone around them and under them (including in their eyes the public at large) with contempt and brutality.
My wife worked offshore for a decade. When she started offshore in 1990 she was well aware of what she was likely to expect from many men (bearing in mind that many rigs at that time had communal showers and 6 to 8 man rooms). What she was surprised about was how many men took offence at the attitude of some of their colleagues and made a point of making it clear they would not put up with it. She found very quickly this was actually the majority.
She did hear from a fair few that they liked having women on board because, as a result, their colleagues actually bothered to wash more than once a week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
We don’t know it was unanimous - only that there was no published dissent.
I find it easy to believe none of the justices want to weigh in on this one until they absolutely have to. They are not immune to political matters, they all clearly regard advancing political agendas as a big part of their role, but it has its own form and there's the shared image/authority of the court to think about, so hoping the whole set of Trump issues can be delayed or, best case, resolve itself somehow, could be appealing, without any sort of actual improper action on their part.
Some politicians would love it if the courts could derail Trump and make him not being President not their fault, and the politicians in robes would probably love it if the legal questions for them became far less pressing because the election has already happened, or he loses a primary and self destructs or something.
It seems pretty clear some of the issues will end up before them prior to the election however, so they cannot escape it entirely.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
Also chloroform is not odorless. So you'd be the weird man asking girls to sniff his hankie, who also smelt funny.
Also the cliche of it being something that knocks you out almost instantly isn't true
"The use of chloroform as an incapacitating agent has become widely recognized, bordering on cliché, through the adoption by crime fiction authors of plots involving criminals' use of chloroform-soaked rags to render victims unconscious. However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform in this way.[61] It takes at least five minutes of inhalation of chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform involve co-administration of another drug, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being complicit in its administration."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
We don’t know it was unanimous - only that there was no published dissent.
I find it easy to believe none of the justices want to weigh in on this one until they absolutely have to. They are not immune to political matters, they all clearly regard advancing political agendas as a big part of their role, but it has its own form and there's the shared image/authority of the court to think about, so hoping the whole set of Trump issues can be delayed or, best case, resolve itself somehow, could be appealing, without any sort of actual improper action on their part.
Some politicians would love it if the courts could derail Trump and make him not being President not their fault, and the politicians in robes would probably love it if the legal questions for them became far less pressing because the election has already happened, or he loses a primary and self destructs or something.
It seems pretty clear some of the issues will end up before them prior to the election however, so they cannot escape it entirely.
They really could escape it entirely. Just decline to take the cases.
The stuff Trump's sending them in the DC case seems pretty worthless, it's not like there's a serious legal question that the country needs resolved; The only reason it's interesting whether they'd take it is because they might actively want to put their thumb on the scale for Trump to help him get away with crimes, but if they don't want to do that then they don't need to get involved.
I imagine they'll take the ballot disqualification case, but again, they could just... not. States have their own laws and constitutions, just let them do their thing.
When someone makes a bad joke that falls flat, the usual retort is "Don't give up the day job." But in the case of James Cleverly and his creepy, misogynist attempt at humour, please do give up the day job. https://twitter.com/thewritertype/status/1738683308320428085
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
How is this fake news allowed to circulate? Does Twitter not do context anymore?
So what context would you add?
I've just had a look at the thread. The debate is whether the woman is 16yr old person X or 21yr old person Y and whether she was killed by Hamas or the IDF. I have no idea what is the truth and will not speculate (remember my self-denying ordinance on this) but I can say that when AI can produce many exact images and bots can reproduce many exact people (very close now if Leon is right) then things like this will devolve from difficult to nightmarish. How will we cope when threads are entirely fictional and indistinguishable from real ones?
I agree. I was just commenting on @AverageNinja absolute certainty. It’s very reminiscent of someone
Everyone knows who I am. You haven't made a discovery here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
We don’t know it was unanimous - only that there was no published dissent.
I find it easy to believe none of the justices want to weigh in on this one until they absolutely have to. They are not immune to political matters, they all clearly regard advancing political agendas as a big part of their role, but it has its own form and there's the shared image/authority of the court to think about, so hoping the whole set of Trump issues can be delayed or, best case, resolve itself somehow, could be appealing, without any sort of actual improper action on their part.
Some politicians would love it if the courts could derail Trump and make him not being President not their fault, and the politicians in robes would probably love it if the legal questions for them became far less pressing because the election has already happened, or he loses a primary and self destructs or something.
It seems pretty clear some of the issues will end up before them prior to the election however, so they cannot escape it entirely.
It’s hardly ‘derailing Trump’ to rule that the President doesn’t have absolute immunity for actions which are criminal.
That is the easiest of the issues they’re being asked to decide.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
The articles I have read suggested that the standard appeal process is measured in months, not weeks. That would be consistent with my experience in this country. So, for example, if the SNP had appealed the decision by Lady Haldane it would not have resulted in a Supreme Court decision next year but rather the year after.
Those articles also suggest that the underlying case will be stayed until that decision is made and, frankly, that makes sense. What would be the point of a trial if the accused was found to be immune?
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
It is extraordinary. Though it’s possible that the taboo more likely being broken here is someone not keeping quiet, when thirty years ago the might have done ?
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
However I would suggest as a counterpoint that PB is reasonably representative of a cross section of male attitude in this country and overwhelmingly (with a few notable exceptions) discusses women and female issues generally with a reasonable amount of decorum and does not show contempt for women. I don't actually think PB is exceptional in this amongst the population in general. Not seeing much defence of Cleverly on here tonight.
What I do think is that there are certain institutions and a certain class of men who are in priveledged positions and who treat everyone around them and under them (including in their eyes the public at large) with contempt and brutality.
My wife worked offshore for a decade. When she started offshore in 1990 she was well aware of what she was likely to expect from many men (bearing in mind that many rigs at that time had communal showers and 6 to 8 man rooms). What she was surprised about was how many men took offence at the attitude of some of their colleagues and made a point of making it clear they would not put up with it. She found very quickly this was actually the majority.
She did hear from a fair few that they liked having women on board because, as a result, their colleagues actually bothered to wash more than once a week.
That is interesting. I found the opposite at the Bar when I started. Senior and not so senior male barristers viewed female pupils as sexual booty and were quite open about this. So did quite a few male clients.
Re your wife's experiences, it says something that some of the men only behaved because there was a woman around. Why would you not wash every day for your own self-respect, regardless of whether a member of the opposite sex is around?
PB is generally very civil. Certainly by comparison with much other social media. It can sometimes be a bit dismissive of women and their perspective. Its default view of the world is a male one, understandably enough.
But on the whole unlike you I think it probably is not generally very representative of the country as a whole - at least if you look at the range of institutions in the country which have treated women abominably. There is scarcely a sector which is untouched. And this at a time when everyone is meant to have been taught about respect and inclusiveness etc., We have to my mind a coarse society with much of the sort of behaviour which we have always had. We just like to think we are better than our parents and grandparents generation. And maybe in some respects we are. But in others we are no better. And in some cases I think we have got worse.
I am all for gamey humour, but joking about roofies is not a great look for a Home Sec. Not sure how he can be replaced so soon after Braverman's sacking. Delayed promotion for Robert Jenrick?
You need someone strong and stable in that job.
Jesus?
Can you actually describe someone who willingly lets himself nailed to a tree as stable....nowadays for a start that would get him prosecuted under the extreme porn laws
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
I have to say that in general what I see does not indicate what might be called institutional sexism in the way you describe. I work for the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland. Both are currently women. The Lord Justice Clerk, our second most senior judge, is a woman and it is rumoured that the next Lord President might be too.
You do get some "colourful" stories from time to time and we had a finding this week that the Faculty disciplinary service was inadequate in the way that it had dealt with a senior member's behaviour and we were fined a modest amount. Maybe that is the lid coming off or maybe it was just a very poor decision.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
It is extraordinary. Though it’s possible that the taboo more likely being broken here is someone not keeping quiet, when thirty years ago the might have done ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.QqdS.bi3c32nC9899&smid=url-share ..For a tribunal that is supposed to sit far away from, not astride, politics, that’s a lot for the Supreme Court to handle. And this is happening at a rough moment for the court. In August 2000, on the eve of Bush v. Gore, 62 percent of Americans approved of how the Supreme Court was conducting itself. Now, recent polling shows that nearly that portion (58 percent) disapproves of the institution, a figure that scrapes historic lows for the court.
Yet the multiplicity of cases affords the justices an opportunity to avoid pinning themselves in still further if they keep an eye on how potential decisions will — collectively — shape the political landscape. The point is not that getting the underlying legal questions “right” is irrelevant. But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it...
.. The court failed that test in Bush v. Gore — handing down a ruling widely perceived as Republican-appointed justices installing a Republican president via a strained (and oddly cabined) reading of the Equal Protection Clause and helping to precipitate the downturn in public opinion that figures so prominently in these cases.
As the Jan. 6 cases put the justices right in the middle of the 2024 election, the question is whether they’ll understand the imperative of not letting history repeat.
Ultimately, these contemporary disputes may not provide a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to right that wrong. But if one thing’s for certain, it’s that neither the court nor the country can afford another election-altering ruling that takes such obvious partisan sides.
For all practical purposes they have already made that decision by refusing Smith's application for an expedited appeal on the question of Trump's immunity. This means that the Appeal process will now drag right through the entire nomination period and the outcome of the trials may well struggle to come to a conclusion before the election.
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
The articles I have read suggested that the standard appeal process is measured in months, not weeks. That would be consistent with my experience in this country. So, for example, if the SNP had appealed the decision by Lady Haldane it would not have resulted in a Supreme Court decision next year but rather the year after.
Those articles also suggest that the underlying case will be stayed until that decision is made and, frankly, that makes sense. What would be the point of a trial if the accused was found to be immune?
IIUC the standard appeal process would indeed be months but the DC Circuit are already running this one on 16x speed. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 9th. The actual case will be stayed until the DC Circuit make a decision, but (at least per clever-sounding people on Bluesky) it will likely be resumed once they throw the appeal out, rather than waiting while it sits in the SCOTUS certiorari queue again or whatever.
When someone makes a bad joke that falls flat, the usual retort is "Don't give up the day job." But in the case of James Cleverly and his creepy, misogynist attempt at humour, please do give up the day job. https://twitter.com/thewritertype/status/1738683308320428085
When he said he wanted to be Home Secretary, everybody laughed. They’re not laughing now.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
It is extraordinary. Though it’s possible that the taboo more likely being broken here is someone not keeping quiet, when thirty years ago the might have done ?
There are plenty of us who think he should be out on his ear - indeed that seems to be a pretty strong consensus over social media.
Yes - maybe 30 years ago people would have kept quiet.
Cleverly is not an old man. He's 54. What on earth was he thinking?
God knows. I'm quite a bit older than him and it baffles me.
There is certainly a tendency among this's who achieve positions of power to start to believe they are wittier, of more intelligent than they are. But this was so crass it's hard to credit.
In some strange way I think he thought he was being amusingly self deprecating (which is usually a form of boasting anyway).
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
It is extraordinary. Though it’s possible that the taboo more likely being broken here is someone not keeping quiet, when thirty years ago the might have done ?
There are plenty of us who think he should be out on his ear - indeed that seems to be a pretty strong consensus over social media.
Yes - maybe 30 years ago people would have kept quiet.
Cleverly is not an old man. He's 54. What on earth was he thinking?
God knows. I'm quite a bit older than him and it baffles me.
There is certainly a tendency among this's who achieve positions of power to start to believe they are wittier, of more intelligent than they are. But this was so crass it's hard to credit.
In some strange way I think he thought he was being amusingly self deprecating (which is usually a form of boasting anyway).
They are trying to throw the election, it’s the only explanation left.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
Quite shocking remarks by Cleverly and it's hard to disagree with your post, unfortunately. Of course the real evidence of misogyny will come not from the remarks themselves but from whether the Home Secretary is still in office tomorrow.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I agree with the point, but then you've made it so that anyone who might disagree with you is presumed to be doing so for an ill motivation, so there's not really much point in developing on it any further either way, since any attempt to do so would just be labelled lacking empathy or imagination.
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
I could describe that as a pretty passive aggressive response. But, no. I am genuinely interested in what men see and if they disagree why they do so. Or maybe they can see it but think that that's just the way it is and not much can be done about it. I don't exclude women from this either. Some of the coarsening which @StillWaters mentions has come from women themselves.
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
It is extraordinary. Though it’s possible that the taboo more likely being broken here is someone not keeping quiet, when thirty years ago the might have done ?
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
I think you are being a little broadbeush.
But there has been a general coarsening of civili society over the last 25 years or so and women are particularly exposed
And how and why has this coarsening of society happened? Who has benefited from it? Who has participated in it?
Because this "coarsening" is not like rain falling out of the sky. It is a result of people choosing to act or not act in certain ways. It would be instructive to look at who and why.
Of course. It’s many things, but it is noticeable. Equally there are elements to the disadvantage of women (eg few people give up seats to them on trains any more) which are a consequence of equality.
I am all for gamey humour, but joking about roofies is not a great look for a Home Sec. Not sure how he can be replaced so soon after Braverman's sacking. Delayed promotion for Robert Jenrick?
You need someone strong and stable in that job.
Jesus?
Can you actually describe someone who willingly lets himself nailed to a tree as stable....nowadays for a start that would get him prosecuted under the extreme porn laws
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
However I would suggest as a counterpoint that PB is reasonably representative of a cross section of male attitude in this country and overwhelmingly (with a few notable exceptions) discusses women and female issues generally with a reasonable amount of decorum and does not show contempt for women. I don't actually think PB is exceptional in this amongst the population in general. Not seeing much defence of Cleverly on here tonight.
What I do think is that there are certain institutions and a certain class of men who are in priveledged positions and who treat everyone around them and under them (including in their eyes the public at large) with contempt and brutality.
My wife worked offshore for a decade. When she started offshore in 1990 she was well aware of what she was likely to expect from many men (bearing in mind that many rigs at that time had communal showers and 6 to 8 man rooms). What she was surprised about was how many men took offence at the attitude of some of their colleagues and made a point of making it clear they would not put up with it. She found very quickly this was actually the majority.
She did hear from a fair few that they liked having women on board because, as a result, their colleagues actually bothered to wash more than once a week.
That is interesting. I found the opposite at the Bar when I started. Senior and not so senior male barristers viewed female pupils as sexual booty and were quite open about this. So did quite a few male clients.
Re your wife's experiences, it says something that some of the men only behaved because there was a woman around. Why would you not wash every day for your own self-respect, regardless of whether a member of the opposite sex is around?
PB is generally very civil. Certainly by comparison with much other social media. It can sometimes be a bit dismissive of women and their perspective. Its default view of the world is a male one, understandably enough.
But on the whole unlike you I think it probably is not generally very representative of the country as a whole - at least if you look at the range of institutions in the country which have treated women abominably. There is scarcely a sector which is untouched. And this at a time when everyone is meant to have been taught about respect and inclusiveness etc., We have to my mind a coarse society with much of the sort of behaviour which we have always had. We just like to think we are better than our parents and grandparents generation. And maybe in some respects we are. But in others we are no better. And in some cases I think we have got worse.
I think the point I was making was that those institutions treat everyone abominably unless they are 'inside' in terms of class, clubs, social circle etc. Racism and gay bashing (mostly in a verbal rather than physical way these days) are still rife. As is looking down on anyone from a 'lower' social circle or anyone just different. In this context yes women as a group are discriminated against but so are the vast majority of other people.
On the rig question I think you have to realise that, unless they have come through some form of military service, many men are actually really, really bad at looking after themselves. This is not just a question of personal hygene but in all aspects of their lives. It may be a cliche but it is absolutely true that getting men to (for example) go to the doctor or check themselves for cancers etc is bloody difficult. As a gender we are far more likely to just stick our heads in the sand and hope it all works out. We also commint suicide at a rate three times that of women (16 per 100,000 compared to 5.5 per 100,000).
Basically I am not sure men like themselves very much. Or at least not enough.
On topic, probably not but it's certainly possible there could be an upset.
Fact remains though that unless *any* of the non-Trump candidates can (1) beat the rest of them off quickly, (2) consolidate the anti-Trump vote, and (3) swing at least a quarter of the Trump vote to them and/or bring in new voters to them, Trump wins at a canter.
And how do any of them do that without going after Trump, and rejecting his framing of the election? They can't - yet they're not.
If Hayley wins in New Hampshire (and it's a big if), then I think she will rapidly consolidate the non-Trump vote. She should certainly pick up the vast bulk of Christie's support, for example.
The interesting question then is whether Trump will debate her. Because ducking out from debating the Four Dwarves is one thing, ducking out from someone who has just beat you in a primary is another.
Doubt just calling her 'birdbrain' will work either.
If she’s so thick why did he appoint her ambassador to the UN?
So are Gremlins, The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe, and Eyes Wide Shut.
The Lion is a Easter story… the whole point is that it’s never Christmas…
It's always winter and never Christmas, thanks to the White Witch.
The winter setting is just decoration. The theme is about Aslan’s death and return to life plus his forgiveness of Edmund
A winter setting as decoration is used as definitive proof of something being about Christmas in certain other entertainment products, so on the same basis The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe would qualify, despite not really fitting thematically.
In the book, doesn’t Father Christmas show up, having previously been blocked by evil magic?
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
I found Cleverly's joke amusing...and would have laughed if I was down the pub and one of my friends had said it. But then again my friends are not Cabinet Ministers with responsibility for Law and Order. He is a tw@t.
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
However I would suggest as a counterpoint that PB is reasonably representative of a cross section of male attitude in this country and overwhelmingly (with a few notable exceptions) discusses women and female issues generally with a reasonable amount of decorum and does not show contempt for women. I don't actually think PB is exceptional in this amongst the population in general. Not seeing much defence of Cleverly on here tonight.
What I do think is that there are certain institutions and a certain class of men who are in priveledged positions and who treat everyone around them and under them (including in their eyes the public at large) with contempt and brutality.
My wife worked offshore for a decade. When she started offshore in 1990 she was well aware of what she was likely to expect from many men (bearing in mind that many rigs at that time had communal showers and 6 to 8 man rooms). What she was surprised about was how many men took offence at the attitude of some of their colleagues and made a point of making it clear they would not put up with it. She found very quickly this was actually the majority.
She did hear from a fair few that they liked having women on board because, as a result, their colleagues actually bothered to wash more than once a week.
That is interesting. I found the opposite at the Bar when I started. Senior and not so senior male barristers viewed female pupils as sexual booty and were quite open about this. So did quite a few male clients.
Re your wife's experiences, it says something that some of the men only behaved because there was a woman around. Why would you not wash every day for your own self-respect, regardless of whether a member of the opposite sex is around?
PB is generally very civil. Certainly by comparison with much other social media. It can sometimes be a bit dismissive of women and their perspective. Its default view of the world is a male one, understandably enough.
But on the whole unlike you I think it probably is not generally very representative of the country as a whole - at least if you look at the range of institutions in the country which have treated women abominably. There is scarcely a sector which is untouched. And this at a time when everyone is meant to have been taught about respect and inclusiveness etc., We have to my mind a coarse society with much of the sort of behaviour which we have always had. We just like to think we are better than our parents and grandparents generation. And maybe in some respects we are. But in others we are no better. And in some cases I think we have got worse.
It's a strange business. I have never seen or heard of sexual harassment in any of the departments that I have worked in*. This year though there has been quite a campaign against it in Surgery, and it's surely likely that isn't the only speciality with offenders.
The answer to the paradox is surely that the predators pick their victims, isolate them and target them in a witness free environment. Hence the difficulty in stamping it out.
*I have investigated a case in another department, of the Trust. There have been multiple relationships between staff members, but all consensual, and a couple of marriages. On a HR day I asked my team about their experiences of sexual harassment they only raised cases of patients behaving inappropriately.
Would love to join in this debate but have a busy day ahead, so may I just say...
1. PB is better than most but not as good as it could and should be. Incidentally, in its early days (yes, I was there!) there were very few female posters indeed, and this fact was often commented upon with regret. We still need more, but the numbers have improved.
2. Don't know about the bar but the worst industry for misogyny (and by a long way) which I have ever come across is what you might loosely term 'Fleet Street'. Attitudes there could be described as mediaeval if that were not an insult to our ancient forefathers and mothers.
If I remember correctly, SeanT one sang the virtues of Rohypnol on here: albeit self consumption to make long airline flights fly by.
I confess to being ignorant what it's legitimate purpose is even supposed to be - that is, how people get hold of it in the first place.
The really scary thing about it is how quickly it metabolises. Unless blood samples are taken within about 6 hours of consumption there is very little to no prospect of a trace being found. Personally, I would have possession of it on a similar level of offending to rape itself in terms of sentence.
With what knock on effect....chloroform can be made out home out of common household ingredients people will just turn to that with the possible results of them getting it badly wrong and having to have police arrest people for having a clear liquid in a bottle as sniffing it to see if its chloroform is not a good idea
So let me get this straight. You think that people are going to want to carry drugs to knock people out so that they can rape them so it might as well be Rohypnol? By the same logic people should be allowed to carry guns because if they don't they will only stab people anyway. It is, with respect, a bizarre argument.
Rohypnol has medical uses, what percentage of rohypnol is used for bad purposes...I suspect less than 5%
And yes I was pointing out if you are a bad actor there are easy alternatives that you wont get arrested for. Unlike the gun knife argument where you actually have to put in the effort to get a gun.
I don't know about the kind of bars you hang out in, but in the ones I go to, chloroforming the female clientele would be both conspicuous and frowned upon.
Pfft you pass her a handkerchief for some reason she sniffs...."oh she has fainted I will take her out for some air"
You do know that chloroform evaporates very quickly, right? (That's how it works.)
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
Squeeze bottle in the pocket with the handkerchief...reach in squeeze pull out handkerchief
I'd love to see your success rate with "sniff my hankie". I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 1%.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Am I the only one who finds it worrying that he appears to have given this a lot of thought?
There are red flags galore on this thread.
Anyone caught with rohypnol, chloroform or similar in a bar etc should be very heavily dealt with. This should include forensic analysis of their IT devices as very likely to clear up a number of related crimes.
Good morning all, and happy Christmas Eve to PBers everywhere. Hope you are all with your loved ones, and looking forward to eating and drinking too much in the next few days.
May God be with you all, and may Santa bring many presents!
Women aren't much liked or respected by men in this country.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
However I would suggest as a counterpoint that PB is reasonably representative of a cross section of male attitude in this country and overwhelmingly (with a few notable exceptions) discusses women and female issues generally with a reasonable amount of decorum and does not show contempt for women. I don't actually think PB is exceptional in this amongst the population in general. Not seeing much defence of Cleverly on here tonight.
What I do think is that there are certain institutions and a certain class of men who are in priveledged positions and who treat everyone around them and under them (including in their eyes the public at large) with contempt and brutality.
My wife worked offshore for a decade. When she started offshore in 1990 she was well aware of what she was likely to expect from many men (bearing in mind that many rigs at that time had communal showers and 6 to 8 man rooms). What she was surprised about was how many men took offence at the attitude of some of their colleagues and made a point of making it clear they would not put up with it. She found very quickly this was actually the majority.
She did hear from a fair few that they liked having women on board because, as a result, their colleagues actually bothered to wash more than once a week.
That is interesting. I found the opposite at the Bar when I started. Senior and not so senior male barristers viewed female pupils as sexual booty and were quite open about this. So did quite a few male clients.
Re your wife's experiences, it says something that some of the men only behaved because there was a woman around. Why would you not wash every day for your own self-respect, regardless of whether a member of the opposite sex is around?
PB is generally very civil. Certainly by comparison with much other social media. It can sometimes be a bit dismissive of women and their perspective. Its default view of the world is a male one, understandably enough.
But on the whole unlike you I think it probably is not generally very representative of the country as a whole - at least if you look at the range of institutions in the country which have treated women abominably. There is scarcely a sector which is untouched. And this at a time when everyone is meant to have been taught about respect and inclusiveness etc., We have to my mind a coarse society with much of the sort of behaviour which we have always had. We just like to think we are better than our parents and grandparents generation. And maybe in some respects we are. But in others we are no better. And in some cases I think we have got worse.
I think the point I was making was that those institutions treat everyone abominably unless they are 'inside' in terms of class, clubs, social circle etc. Racism and gay bashing (mostly in a verbal rather than physical way these days) are still rife. As is looking down on anyone from a 'lower' social circle or anyone just different. In this context yes women as a group are discriminated against but so are the vast majority of other people.
On the rig question I think you have to realise that, unless they have come through some form of military service, many men are actually really, really bad at looking after themselves. This is not just a question of personal hygene but in all aspects of their lives. It may be a cliche but it is absolutely true that getting men to (for example) go to the doctor or check themselves for cancers etc is bloody difficult. As a gender we are far more likely to just stick our heads in the sand and hope it all works out. We also commint suicide at a rate three times that of women (16 per 100,000 compared to 5.5 per 100,000).
Basically I am not sure men like themselves very much. Or at least not enough.
That last sentence rings true to me.
We have a problem in society with male mental health, in part down to ingrained attitudes to male behaviour. For many men the only ways to express distress is through drink, drugs, violence or cruel banter. This often impacts on people around them, particularly on women, so gets expressed as misogyny. It is an old psychiatric joke, but one with a hint of truth, that the difference between murder and suicide is one of extraversion vs introversion.
I found Cleverly's joke amusing...and would have laughed if I was down the pub and one of my friends had said it. But then again my friends are not Cabinet Ministers with responsibility for Law and Order. He is a tw@t.
Wow!
(I'm going to listen to Cyclefree with even more respect in future.)
Comments
The US justice system has completely failed to address behaviour by a President that comes very close to treason with an entire electoral cycle to play with. The Republic has been grievously weakened by this. The Rubicon has been crossed and the system has failed to hold the perpetrator to account. The Supreme Court bears a heavy burden of responsibility for this.
So... First you have to get the chloroform into the hankie inconspicuously, and then in the next 15 seconds you need to persuade a girl to sniff your hankie.
You know, if you could manage that level of persuasion, I'm not sure you need chloroform.
It’s possible you’re right (and I also strongly criticised the decision), but the appeal court are hearing the case in early January, and it’s also quite possible that they find against Trump, and the SC refuses his subsequent appeal.
I don’t think any US legal commentators know which way it will go.
The stakes, as the article notes, are enormous.
And on the Democrat side of things that genuine risk from the GOP no longer supporting democracy has to have at least a few more of them questioning what they would also be willing to do if, as is perfectly possible, Trump actually scrapes wins in key states. Legal challenges to be sure, though whether they will be as baseless we shall see.
And, of course, after the third of fourth failed attempt, you will be forever characterized as "the weirdo who keeps asking girls to sniff his hankie."
Quote
"Who abuses Rohypnol?
Teenagers and young adults, primarily individuals aged 13 to 30, are the principal users of Rohypnol, and most users are male. The drug is popular on high school and college campuses and at raves and nightclubs.
Rohypnol use among high school students is a particular problem. Nearly 2 percent of high school seniors in the United States used Rohypnol at least once in the past year, according to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey."
source
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs6/6074/index.htm#:~:text=Teenagers and young adults, primarily,and at raves and nightclubs.
You want all those charged with rape because some do use it that way? I suspect the biggest drug involved in rape is alcohol
https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media/GCDrtDSXYAA0_-j.jpg
A spokesperson for the home secretary said: “In what was always understood as a private conversation, James, the home secretary, tackling spiking made what was clearly meant to be an ironic joke – for which he apologises.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform
"The use of chloroform as an incapacitating agent has become widely recognized, bordering on cliché, through the adoption by crime fiction authors of plots involving criminals' use of chloroform-soaked rags to render victims unconscious. However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform in this way.[61] It takes at least five minutes of inhalation of chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform involve co-administration of another drug, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being complicit in its administration."
(Hint: you need to read my posts again and sharpen up your comprehension skills.)
Originally manufacturered by Roche
a) there are other options to rohypnol
b) most possession of rohypnol legal or otherwise has little to do with rape
c) The most common drug involved with rape is alcohol
I would imagine something that makes someone woozy and suggestible would be better for any villainous purpose anyway. Moving bodies is also tough, as James Cleverly might jest.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3kh5u3m47zm2i
Apparently the refusal to skip the appeals court was unanimous (so Dems judges agreed) and would have been very unusual if they'd done it. The appeal court can now get on with handling the appeal, which shouldn't take them long. Trump will presumably then appeal to SCOTUS, but it's unlikely that anything will be stopped while they're considering whether to take the case. At that point it's possible that SCOTUS could say, "OK, we'll take the case" then go on a lengthy camping trip to Wyoming, but until that happens I don't think it's fair to say that SCOTUS are throwing sand in the gears. To date they've just declined to get involved in any of the Trump nonsense.
Judging by the way they are spoken about in public and treated, both in public and in private.
Sure: lots of exceptions no doubt, before I get you all saying how much you love your wives or girlfriends.
Lots of women are lusted after, certainly.
But basic decency towards and respect for women - of all ages - seem missing far too often. Britain has sometimes been described as a country which dislikes its children. Well, it could also be described as one which dislikes its women. Perhaps the two are related. But there is a coarseness, an indecency a brutality, a contempt in much of our public discourse about - and treatment of - women.
I expect to be accused of making far too broad brush a statement. Well, maybe. But instead of immediately leaping to make this obvious response maybe look around at how women are treated and spoken about in the range of media, in workplaces, in politics - and maybe wonder how all this comes across to women. A bit of empathy or imagination. Ask yourself if you'd like to have this as the background to your life, no matter which part of the country you live in, where you work or what your financial / class status is , all the time from the age of about 11 until you die.
But there has been a general coarsening of civili society over the last 25 years or so and women are particularly exposed
I mean, if I say I will ask myself that as you request, that hardly satisfies anything and might even be regarded as presumptuous white knighting.
Because this "coarsening" is not like rain falling out of the sky. It is a result of people choosing to act or not act in certain ways. It would be instructive to look at who and why.
What I do think is that there are certain institutions and a certain class of men who are in priveledged positions and who treat everyone around them and under them (including in their eyes the public at large) with contempt and brutality.
My wife worked offshore for a decade. When she started offshore in 1990 she was well aware of what she was likely to expect from many men (bearing in mind that many rigs at that time had communal showers and 6 to 8 man rooms). What she was surprised about was how many men took offence at the attitude of some of their colleagues and made a point of making it clear they would not put up with it. She found very quickly this was actually the majority.
She did hear from a fair few that they liked having women on board because, as a result, their colleagues actually bothered to wash more than once a week.
Some politicians would love it if the courts could derail Trump and make him not being President not their fault, and the politicians in robes would probably love it if the legal questions for them became far less pressing because the election has already happened, or he loses a primary and self destructs or something.
It seems pretty clear some of the issues will end up before them prior to the election however, so they cannot escape it entirely.
The stuff Trump's sending them in the DC case seems pretty worthless, it's not like there's a serious legal question that the country needs resolved; The only reason it's interesting whether they'd take it is because they might actively want to put their thumb on the scale for Trump to help him get away with crimes, but if they don't want to do that then they don't need to get involved.
I imagine they'll take the ballot disqualification case, but again, they could just... not. States have their own laws and constitutions, just let them do their thing.
When someone makes a bad joke that falls flat, the usual retort is "Don't give up the day job." But in the case of James Cleverly and his creepy, misogynist attempt at humour, please do give up the day job.
https://twitter.com/thewritertype/status/1738683308320428085
I just find it extraordinary that a Home Secretary should have thought it appropriate, given his responsibilities, to make a joke about rape in marriage, even at a private function. People probably thought like that 30 years or so ago but may have felt a taboo about being quite so open. Or is that too rosy a picture? But now it often feels that there are no social taboos at all and any sort of coarse or vulgar behaviour or talk is OK and it is often women - or other minority or vulnerable groups - who bear the brunt of it.
That is the easiest of the issues they’re being asked to decide.
Those articles also suggest that the underlying case will be stayed until that decision is made and, frankly, that makes sense. What would be the point of a trial if the accused was found to be immune?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/23/james-cleverly-apologises-for-appalling-date-drug-joke-at-no-10-event
… Conversations at Downing Street receptions are usually understood to be “off the record” but the Sunday Mirror decided to break that convention because of Cleverly’s position and the subject matter...
There are plenty of us who think he should be out on his ear - indeed that seems to be a pretty strong consensus over social media.
Re your wife's experiences, it says something that some of the men only behaved because there was a woman around. Why would you not wash every day for your own self-respect, regardless of whether a member of the opposite sex is around?
PB is generally very civil. Certainly by comparison with much other social media. It can sometimes be a bit dismissive of women and their perspective. Its default view of the world is a male one, understandably enough.
But on the whole unlike you I think it probably is not generally very representative of the country as a whole - at least if you look at the range of institutions in the country which have treated women abominably. There is scarcely a sector which is untouched. And this at a time when everyone is meant to have been taught about respect and inclusiveness etc., We have to my mind a coarse society with much of the sort of behaviour which we have always had. We just like to think we are better than our parents and grandparents generation. And maybe in some respects we are. But in others we are no better. And in some cases I think we have got worse.
You do get some "colourful" stories from time to time and we had a finding this week that the Faculty disciplinary service was inadequate in the way that it had dealt with a senior member's behaviour and we were fined a modest amount. Maybe that is the lid coming off or maybe it was just a very poor decision.
Cleverly is not an old man. He's 54. What on earth was he thinking?
Edit to add: More on the DC Circuit expediting the appeal here:
https://bsky.app/profile/tpm.bsky.social/post/3kgj6po4maz2y
I'm quite a bit older than him and it baffles me.
There is certainly a tendency among this's who achieve positions of power to start to believe they are wittier, of more intelligent than they are. But this was so crass it's hard to credit.
In some strange way I think he thought he was being amusingly self deprecating (which is usually a form of boasting anyway).
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4375167-barr-predicts-abuse-of-government-power-if-trump-reelected-2024/
On the rig question I think you have to realise that, unless they have come through some form of military service, many men are actually really, really bad at looking after themselves. This is not just a question of personal hygene but in all aspects of their lives. It may be a cliche but it is absolutely true that getting men to (for example) go to the doctor or check themselves for cancers etc is bloody difficult. As a gender we are far more likely to just stick our heads in the sand and hope it all works out. We also commint suicide at a rate three times that of women (16 per 100,000 compared to 5.5 per 100,000).
Basically I am not sure men like themselves very much. Or at least not enough.
https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1738589132979331434
If you can be charged with “going equipped” for burglary, with various tools, surely being found in possession of Rohypnol without a medical license…?
Trump wins Iowa
Haley wins New Hampshire
Haley wins Nevada
Trump wins the other Nevada
Haley wins South Carolina
Constipation doubles probability of Alzheimer's disease: study
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=365628
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/12/female-surgeons-nhs-sexually-assaulted-metoo
The answer to the paradox is surely that the predators pick their victims, isolate them and target them in a witness free environment. Hence the difficulty in stamping it out.
*I have investigated a case in another department, of the Trust. There have been multiple relationships between staff members, but all consensual, and a couple of marriages. On a HR day I asked my team about their experiences of sexual harassment they only raised cases of patients behaving inappropriately.
Would love to join in this debate but have a busy day ahead, so may I just say...
1. PB is better than most but not as good as it could and should be. Incidentally, in its early days (yes, I was there!) there were very few female posters indeed, and this fact was often commented upon with regret. We still need more, but the numbers have improved.
2. Don't know about the bar but the worst industry for misogyny (and by a long way) which I have ever come across is what you might loosely term 'Fleet Street'. Attitudes there could be described as mediaeval if that were not an insult to our ancient forefathers and mothers.
Have a Happy Christmas everyone.
Anyone caught with rohypnol, chloroform or similar in a bar etc should be very heavily dealt with. This should include forensic analysis of their IT devices as very likely to clear up a number of related crimes.
And I don't think chloroform is much use as a date rape drug...
May God be with you all, and may Santa bring many presents!
We have a problem in society with male mental health, in part down to ingrained attitudes to male behaviour. For many men the only ways to express distress is through drink, drugs, violence or cruel banter. This often impacts on people around them, particularly on women, so gets expressed as misogyny. It is an old psychiatric joke, but one with a hint of truth, that the difference between murder and suicide is one of extraversion vs introversion.
(I'm going to listen to Cyclefree with even more respect in future.)