Meanwhile, in "oh hell" and "yes, that David Sullivan" news,
A devastating Ofsted report into a failing children's home run by the private company AP Care Homes Limited has been restored, after briefly being removed by Ofsted...
...AP is the company of Ampika Pickston, of Real Housewives of Cheshire fame. Her partner is David Sullivan, who has a financial interest in AP. Pickston also has a popular OnlyFans account.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
I see a future for them to return as working Royals having kissed the sausage fingers of Charles. I don't see much of a future for them in the US given that they seem less popular there than a dose of the clap. There will need to be a gradual rebuilding of trust, otherwise the rest of the family will just think they're back to collect fresh supplies of racism stories.
There can't be many working Royals at the moment. Charles, Kate & William are off sick; Andrew is banished; Harry & Meghan are in exile. Yet the King wants to slim down the Royal Family.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Not sure if its penetrated south of the border, or been covered on PB, but Humza's family has been all over the Scottish media, and not for the best of reasons.
"The brother-in-law of First Minister Humza Yousaf has been arrested in connection with an incident where a man fell from a flat."
This follows him being nicked a day or two earlier on suspicion of drugs-related offences in Dundee.
As Humza's wife has been very prominent in the media in recent weeks demanding Scotland become a safe haven for displaced Palestinians including another of her brothers, this news is hardly optimal in terms of generating public sympathy.
For @StillWaters - on Nick Read not knowing that an NDA and a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause are the same, the Solicitors' Regulation Authority warning notice about them says this:
"This warning notice covers the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and we use this term to include any form of agreement or contract, or a clause within a wider agreement or contract, under which it is agreed that certain information will be kept confidential."
Nick Read was wrong. (And I was right in my criticism of him.) God knows what his GC, Ben Foat, thinks he is doing.
Imagine having such supreme arrogance as Nick Read and zero motivation and ability to back it up.
An expensive private school education: Worth Its weight in networking opportunities and unflinching self confidence.
I have no skin in the Post Office game, but the fact that someone so clearly inept could make it as a Captain of commerce was vomit inducing.
Not sure if its penetrated south of the border, or been covered on PB, but Humza's family has been all over the Scottish media, and not for the best of reasons.
"The brother-in-law of First Minister Humza Yousaf has been arrested in connection with an incident where a man fell from a flat."
This follows him being nicked a day or two earlier on suspicion of drugs-related offences in Dundee.
As Humza's wife has been very prominent in the media in recent weeks demanding Scotland become a safe haven for displaced Palestinians including another of her brothers, this news is hardly optimal in terms of generating public sympathy.
Meanwhile, in "oh hell" and "yes, that David Sullivan" news,
A devastating Ofsted report into a failing children's home run by the private company AP Care Homes Limited has been restored, after briefly being removed by Ofsted...
...AP is the company of Ampika Pickston, of Real Housewives of Cheshire fame. Her partner is David Sullivan, who has a financial interest in AP. Pickston also has a popular OnlyFans account.
That ofsted report makes for interesting reading. It seems quite hard to run a childrens home. I would guess a lot of them fail and people lose a lot of money in doing so.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Ilkley has the disadvantage of being populated with the sort of twats who live in Ilkley. You can however wind them up by reminding them that Ilkley is part of Bradford. Otherwise, a lovely town. And if you don't want to shop in the local Booths there is a Waitrose down the road in Otley.
As a resident of Airedale I would agree that Airedale and Wharfedale are excellent choices. But avoid Keighley - except when visiting the KWVR.
However, I think the Dales get just as much rain as Manchester.
Surely people aren't that much more or less unpleasant from one town to the next? And yet this is definitely isn't the first time I've been told that about Ilkley.
I once cycled from Settle over to Wharfedale in summer. Pretty much instantly, at the watershed, the landscape changed colour from deep green to beige. Though I accept Settle is the Dales too, and that the western Dales at least can be a tad moist.
Anyway. Central Manchester tonight is absolutely sparkling in the icy January air. Makes you glad to be alive.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Snap. I used to devour books but now it's a chore. As I read I'm conscious I'm reading, "hey look you're reading a book!", rather than sinking into it.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Snap. I used to devour books but now it's a chore. As I read I'm conscious I'm reading, "hey look you're reading a book!", rather than sinking into it.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
Me too. Is the internet killing our attention span? I'm sat in a lovely pub with a book in my pocket, but I'm talking to you fellas instead. With a phone in your pocket, you're never truly alone. Which is nice. But also means you miss out on what you used to do when you were truly alone. Thatt said, I just finished my second Christmas book today: Good Pop Bad Pop by Jarvis Cocker. Very enjoyable and also very easy reading. The latter is much undervalued - as we read less, we pressure ourselves to read better, and ease of consumption gets overlooked.
Not sure if its penetrated south of the border, or been covered on PB, but Humza's family has been all over the Scottish media, and not for the best of reasons.
"The brother-in-law of First Minister Humza Yousaf has been arrested in connection with an incident where a man fell from a flat."
This follows him being nicked a day or two earlier on suspicion of drugs-related offences in Dundee.
As Humza's wife has been very prominent in the media in recent weeks demanding Scotland become a safe haven for displaced Palestinians including another of her brothers, this news is hardly optimal in terms of generating public sympathy.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Snap. I used to devour books but now it's a chore. As I read I'm conscious I'm reading, "hey look you're reading a book!", rather than sinking into it.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
Me too. Is the internet killing our attention span? I'm sat in a lovely pub with a book in my pocket, but I'm talking to you fellas instead. With a phone in your pocket, you're never truly alone. Which is nice. But also means you miss out on what you used to do when you were truly alone. Thatt said, I just finished my second Christmas book today: Good Pop Bad Pop by Jarvis Cocker. Very enjoyable and also very easy reading. The latter is much undervalued - as we read less, we pressure ourselves to read better, and ease of consumption gets overlooked.
I have bought Good Pop Bad Pop... Looking forward to reading it.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Ilkley has the disadvantage of being populated with the sort of twats who live in Ilkley. You can however wind them up by reminding them that Ilkley is part of Bradford. Otherwise, a lovely town. And if you don't want to shop in the local Booths there is a Waitrose down the road in Otley.
As a resident of Airedale I would agree that Airedale and Wharfedale are excellent choices. But avoid Keighley - except when visiting the KWVR.
However, I think the Dales get just as much rain as Manchester.
Surely people aren't that much more or less unpleasant from one town to the next? And yet this is definitely isn't the first time I've been told that about Ilkley.
I once cycled from Settle over to Wharfedale in summer. Pretty much instantly, at the watershed, the landscape changed colour from deep green to beige. Though I accept Settle is the Dales too, and that the western Dales at least can be a tad moist.
(Snip)
When doing the Pennine Way many moons ago, I stopped off at Keld youth hostel. It was august, and the small fields behind the hostel each had its own unique shade of green. It was quite mesmerising, especially with the stone walls separating each field.
My Aussie ex said she had never seen as many shades of green as she did in England/Scotland.
Not sure if its penetrated south of the border, or been covered on PB, but Humza's family has been all over the Scottish media, and not for the best of reasons.
"The brother-in-law of First Minister Humza Yousaf has been arrested in connection with an incident where a man fell from a flat."
This follows him being nicked a day or two earlier on suspicion of drugs-related offences in Dundee.
As Humza's wife has been very prominent in the media in recent weeks demanding Scotland become a safe haven for displaced Palestinians including another of her brothers, this news is hardly optimal in terms of generating public sympathy.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Snap. I used to devour books but now it's a chore. As I read I'm conscious I'm reading, "hey look you're reading a book!", rather than sinking into it.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
Me too. Is the internet killing our attention span? I'm sat in a lovely pub with a book in my pocket, but I'm talking to you fellas instead. With a phone in your pocket, you're never truly alone. Which is nice. But also means you miss out on what you used to do when you were truly alone. Thatt said, I just finished my second Christmas book today: Good Pop Bad Pop by Jarvis Cocker. Very enjoyable and also very easy reading. The latter is much undervalued - as we read less, we pressure ourselves to read better, and ease of consumption gets overlooked.
That's a very engaging guy. I haven't read that book but I really like his radio work.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
According to the article the police spent several years investigating her allegations, so I don't understand your implication that these police don't take grooming victims seriously.
Not sure if its penetrated south of the border, or been covered on PB, but Humza's family has been all over the Scottish media, and not for the best of reasons.
"The brother-in-law of First Minister Humza Yousaf has been arrested in connection with an incident where a man fell from a flat."
This follows him being nicked a day or two earlier on suspicion of drugs-related offences in Dundee.
As Humza's wife has been very prominent in the media in recent weeks demanding Scotland become a safe haven for displaced Palestinians including another of her brothers, this news is hardly optimal in terms of generating public sympathy.
Whatever happened to the difference between charging and convicting?
Nuffink so far as I know. Point is that this has been widely covered in the Scottish media and possibly has political and, ultimately, electoral consequences. Which, presumably, might be of interest to a political betting site. No?
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
When Cameron became the leader of the opposition, a member of the Police federation publicly suggested that he (Cameron) "might not be allowed top be Prime Minister"
When he became PM, a delegation from ACPO(O) visited No.10 and gave a list of demands to Cameron, including the gundecking of various enquiries (such as Hillsborough related). Cameron is supposed to have asked "Who do these people think they are?"
When it became clear that their demands were not being met, various members of the SMT declared that the "Government was gong to war with the police".
In that context, going after members of the government should have been expected.
Apart from the obvious benefit of making Man Utd look a little more organised team than they would appear otherwise would what do these "rebels" think that they are achieving by these votes? The latest was lost by over 450 votes. It makes the Tories look disorganised, disunited and, frankly mad in an election year. It is going to cost some of then their seats. Its just stupid.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Snap. I used to devour books but now it's a chore. As I read I'm conscious I'm reading, "hey look you're reading a book!", rather than sinking into it.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
Me too. Is the internet killing our attention span? I'm sat in a lovely pub with a book in my pocket, but I'm talking to you fellas instead. With a phone in your pocket, you're never truly alone. Which is nice. But also means you miss out on what you used to do when you were truly alone. Thatt said, I just finished my second Christmas book today: Good Pop Bad Pop by Jarvis Cocker. Very enjoyable and also very easy reading. The latter is much undervalued - as we read less, we pressure ourselves to read better, and ease of consumption gets overlooked.
I have bought Good Pop Bad Pop... Looking forward to reading it.
Me too
I reckon one of the reasons I don’t read much is that at night I like to just have lamps on rather than overhead lights, and ours aren’t in the right place to read under.
That and two kids under four, an unhealthy internet arguing hobby, and no commute to work
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Since the birth of my son (soon to be a year old) I have been extremely affected by stories such as this, and the awful one where the mother left a child at home and partied for a week. The thought of the poor little ones scared, alone and in distress is just too much.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Snap. I used to devour books but now it's a chore. As I read I'm conscious I'm reading, "hey look you're reading a book!", rather than sinking into it.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
When i am working from home I go to a roadside caff lunchtime to have a mug of tea and a burger. I go with a book and no internet. I read a chapter of the book, drink the tea and eat the burger. I go home and work thru the afternoon.
Apart from the obvious benefit of making Man Utd look a little more organised team than they would appear otherwise would what do these "rebels" think that they are achieving by these votes? The latest was lost by over 450 votes. It makes the Tories look disorganised, disunited and, frankly mad in an election year. It is going to cost some of then their seats. Its just stupid.
They've voted in favour of amendments that have been designed to make the Government's avowed flagship illegal immigration policy less prone to legal challenge. Given that it's failed twice on the basis of legal challenges so far, that seems a reasonable and a worthwhile use of an MP's vote - an MP that believes in Rwanda anyway.
I'm more puzzled as to why Sunak's intellectually subnormal Government didn't amend the bill to achieve some of the rebel goals itself. It could also have accepted the 'left wing' amendment of Robert Buckland, aimed at holding Rwanda to its safety commitments.
Apart from the obvious benefit of making Man Utd look a little more organised team than they would appear otherwise would what do these "rebels" think that they are achieving by these votes? The latest was lost by over 450 votes. It makes the Tories look disorganised, disunited and, frankly mad in an election year. It is going to cost some of then their seats. Its just stupid.
Put like that, it sounds like a useful bit of information to put before the public.
But for some, the Brexit Wars was their happy place, and they won that battle. So why not re-enact it? (Lots of reasons, of course, boiling down to the shape of the battle being different. They just haven't noticed.)
For others, things like this (being able to vote to define their own reality independent of any external constraint) was why they wanted Brexit.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
It is not just the acquitted - it is anyone accused who is in the public domain. I've been criticising this for a long time. I don't see how the answer is making a massive example (primed in a clumsy sort of way to go viral on social media) out of one apparently proven set of false allegations. But even if it is right that this case got publicised because of the circumstances, it is still turning the whole circus of arrest, police interview etc in to a kind of reality show and this is what I object to.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Ilkley has the disadvantage of being populated with the sort of twats who live in Ilkley. You can however wind them up by reminding them that Ilkley is part of Bradford. Otherwise, a lovely town. And if you don't want to shop in the local Booths there is a Waitrose down the road in Otley.
As a resident of Airedale I would agree that Airedale and Wharfedale are excellent choices. But avoid Keighley - except when visiting the KWVR.
However, I think the Dales get just as much rain as Manchester.
Surely people aren't that much more or less unpleasant from one town to the next? And yet this is definitely isn't the first time I've been told that about Ilkley.
I once cycled from Settle over to Wharfedale in summer. Pretty much instantly, at the watershed, the landscape changed colour from deep green to beige. Though I accept Settle is the Dales too, and that the western Dales at least can be a tad moist.
(Snip)
When doing the Pennine Way many moons ago, I stopped off at Keld youth hostel. It was august, and the small fields behind the hostel each had its own unique shade of green. It was quite mesmerising, especially with the stone walls separating each field.
My Aussie ex said she had never seen as many shades of green as she did in England/Scotland.
Yes. Although Ireland is greener I think. The Emerald Isle and all that.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Ilkley has the disadvantage of being populated with the sort of twats who live in Ilkley. You can however wind them up by reminding them that Ilkley is part of Bradford. Otherwise, a lovely town. And if you don't want to shop in the local Booths there is a Waitrose down the road in Otley.
As a resident of Airedale I would agree that Airedale and Wharfedale are excellent choices. But avoid Keighley - except when visiting the KWVR.
However, I think the Dales get just as much rain as Manchester.
Surely people aren't that much more or less unpleasant from one town to the next? And yet this is definitely isn't the first time I've been told that about Ilkley.
I once cycled from Settle over to Wharfedale in summer. Pretty much instantly, at the watershed, the landscape changed colour from deep green to beige. Though I accept Settle is the Dales too, and that the western Dales at least can be a tad moist.
(Snip)
When doing the Pennine Way many moons ago, I stopped off at Keld youth hostel. It was august, and the small fields behind the hostel each had its own unique shade of green. It was quite mesmerising, especially with the stone walls separating each field.
My Aussie ex said she had never seen as many shades of green as she did in England/Scotland.
Yes. Although Ireland is greener I think. The Emerald Isle and all that.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
A very odd case, all in all.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
A very odd case, all in all.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
The “corroborating email” was, essentially, a copy of the policeman’s statement. Using the exact same language.
Given it was supposed to be a random passerby, one of the worst forgeries in the history of “hold my beer and watch this”
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
A very odd case, all in all.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
The “corroborating email” was, essentially, a copy of the policeman’s statement. Using the exact same language.
Given it was supposed to be a random passerby, one of the worst forgeries in the history of “hold my beer and watch this”
I have no idea whether the allegations of the bahviour were substantially true, but the point was people believed them, because pompous Tory twat etc.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
A very odd case, all in all.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
The “corroborating email” was, essentially, a copy of the policeman’s statement. Using the exact same language.
Given it was supposed to be a random passerby, one of the worst forgeries in the history of “hold my beer and watch this”
I seem to recall it even used all caps for surnames like police statements.
Terrible situation all around that one - the Police Federation lost all respect from me when they openly lied about what had been said in a meeting with Mitchell, which he proved when playing a recording of it.
Apparently the London Mayoral race has started - four months of this, be still my beating heart. Rob Hayward writes a fairly anodyne piece for the Standard:
Yes, Khan is in a weaker position than last time but Hall's is hardly any better. Three years ago, just before the Mayoral election, a Panelbase poll showed Labour ahead 47-32 in London but in the end Khan won the first vote 40-35. The latest Ashcroft poll from last November had Labour ahead 51-23.
It's possible both Khan and Hall will lose votes to the Greens, LDs and other candidates but Khan, even with his unpopularity, starts the campaign in a strong position and I suspect the election is his to lose.
Galloway might take some Muslim votes in the eastern boroughs but I'm not sure he has the cachet he once did. Corbyn would be a wildcard and would make Khan's life much more difficult.
The other key will be looking at the Conservative-held Westminster seats in London on the new boundaries - turnout in 2021 was 42% and will probably be similar so it's only a rough guide as to whether Labour and the LDs are really making headway in the London suburbs in places like Beckenham & Penge for example.
Apart from the obvious benefit of making Man Utd look a little more organised team than they would appear otherwise would what do these "rebels" think that they are achieving by these votes? The latest was lost by over 450 votes. It makes the Tories look disorganised, disunited and, frankly mad in an election year. It is going to cost some of then their seats. Its just stupid.
I'm not really sure of anyone's strategy in the Tories at the moment. They've given up on attempting to unify, since the various sides appear to recognise they are going to lose regardless so what's the point, but theirvarious manueverings against each other are also pretty intermittent and lacking in true passion. A bit like Rishi himself the rebels also cannot seem to quite decide how far they want to go and what direction to aim for, in terms of setting out their stall for opposition.
In that respect Dorries at least is at least clear.
"Rachel Reeves has hinted at tax cuts for top earners as the shadow chancellor attempts to recast Labour as the party of economic growth...............
However, asked if she agreed that she wanted lower taxes on workers “across the spectrum”, including those earning above £100,000, the shadow chancellor responded: “Yes”."
I wonder if she might restore the PA to everyone?
And partially mitigate it by making 45% threshold start at £100k.
Seems health issues are very topical today as it has been confirmed following a CT scan that my son in law has a blood clot on the outer lining of his right lung and is waiting to see the haematologist for a treatment plan
"Rachel Reeves has hinted at tax cuts for top earners as the shadow chancellor attempts to recast Labour as the party of economic growth...............
However, asked if she agreed that she wanted lower taxes on workers “across the spectrum”, including those earning above £100,000, the shadow chancellor responded: “Yes”."
Starmer will end up implementing Truss and Braverman's policies.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
It is not just the acquitted - it is anyone accused who is in the public domain. I've been criticising this for a long time. I don't see how the answer is making a massive example (primed in a clumsy sort of way to go viral on social media) out of one apparently proven set of false allegations. But even if it is right that this case got publicised because of the circumstances, it is still turning the whole circus of arrest, police interview etc in to a kind of reality show and this is what I object to.
You say "turning" as this is in some way novel. Reporting of crime, arrest, trial, and outcome has been a feature as long as the press has existed. Indeed, it was all MUCH more salacious 150 years ago. Even before that, the progress of such things was a matter of wild gossip in the communities people were from, and there was a carnival atmosphere around the whole thing.
I don't really see how you do it in a practical way without naming names. For serious crimes, the person charged is physically absent for a period on remand at the very least. It will be known to most of the people who matter in their community, and not naming gives rise to huge amounts of speculation - much of it about people with no connection at all to the case.
The whole process is clearly horrible for an accused person, and particularly horrible if they are innocent. But that's also true if they are never formally named but everyone who matters knows (plus that approach drags in people who are wholly unrelated to the matter). Factually stating what the allegation is, who has been accused, what evidence has been presented, and the outcome, is the least worst way to do it, and consistent with justice being seen to be done as well as actually done.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The thing is it can't work. See the mismatch between the flow of boat people into the UK and the realistic (and planned) capacity of the Rwanda system. This has been obvious forever. The bickering about the exact terms of the law is irrelevant.
But like Horizon, the government have long gone past the point where they can admit that it was an idea drawn on the back of a beermat. So even ministers who recognise it's fundamental batsoness have to keep up the pretence.
And yes, a May election allows them to stop pretending soon. But at the cost of acknowledging defeat.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
A very odd case, all in all.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
The “corroborating email” was, essentially, a copy of the policeman’s statement. Using the exact same language.
Given it was supposed to be a random passerby, one of the worst forgeries in the history of “hold my beer and watch this”
A very unsavoury matter all round. Deeply unprofessional policemen making the most of Mitchell behaving in a way that didn't come as all that much surprise to people who'd met him.
What killed him was that the central allegation was really odd. "Pleb" is such a strange, archaic term that it lends credence to the tale. It could, of course, have been made up. But I'd have been inclined to agree with the libel judge that it probably wasn't.
A friend of mine, an employment lawyer, recalls a bullying and discrimination claim where he was defending a large company. One of the allegations was that the claimant (who I think was Spanish or something) was routinely referred to by colleagues as "French paki hands". That's when he knew the case was lost for his client - the claim was just so bizarre as to be completely credible.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I know heist movies often end with the crooks quitting the country, but I'm not sure that Team Rishi will be that blatant.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I'm reminded of the time I was talking to a senior council official from the Property department. He had a large capital budget and he kept saying "I want spades in the ground by April.". The problem was he didn't have enough good project managers or decent consultants to progress all these projects so you can probably guess what happened.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I know heist movies often end with the crooks quitting the country, but I'm not sure that Team Rishi will be that blatant.
The point is, who would take them? They'd be circling the globe until some poor country decided to accept them out of pity and because they were running out of fuel - Rwanda perhaps?
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
Bomb the last remnants of HS2 and the Red Wall?
Even planes to Rwanda won’t make a bit of difference. Just such a silly policy to waste so much time and energy on
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
Probably. Will that stave off disaster, or simply reduce it do you think?
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
A very odd case, all in all.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
The “corroborating email” was, essentially, a copy of the policeman’s statement. Using the exact same language.
Given it was supposed to be a random passerby, one of the worst forgeries in the history of “hold my beer and watch this”
A very unsavoury matter all round. Deeply unprofessional policemen making the most of Mitchell behaving in a way that didn't come as all that much surprise to people who'd met him.
What killed him was that the central allegation was really odd. "Pleb" is such a strange, archaic term that it lends credence to the tale. It could, of course, have been made up. But I'd have been inclined to agree with the libel judge that it probably wasn't.
A friend of mine, an employment lawyer, recalls a bullying and discrimination claim where he was defending a large company. One of the allegations was that the claimant (who I think was Spanish or something) was routinely referred to by colleagues as "French paki hands". That's when he knew the case was lost for his client - the claim was just so bizarre as to be completely credible.
It is not unknown for felons to use improbable language when being arrested so as to make it sound like the police made it up. For example, 'OK, it's a fair cop, Guv', which they hope will have the jury rolling their eyes in disbelief when it is read out in court.
Ah - Rwanda again. Its hard to overestimate just how bored the public are with all this nonsense. Most of us are a bit more interested in working out how to pay the rent and the bills. Means the patience with this stuff runs very thin very quickly.
However, let us just say all goes perfectly for the Cons. The plane takes off for Rwanda with Sunak, Braverman, Jenrick and Gullis linking arms to perform interprative dance on the runway beneath a massive Union flag. So what? The next day the small boats are still coming, the Rwanda facilities are filled by less than one day of smal boat arrivals. After all of the BS how do you think anyone outside the pro-Con bubble is going to react?
When you trumpet your plan and it fails then what happens next? You can only assume the aim is for the great plan to be thwarted and/or implemented within a day or two of the polls opening.
If this was all on Isaac Levido's advice then I can only assume that he is a member of the Labour Party
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
The thing is, as the dust settles on 500 to 3000 bad guys arriving in Kigale in the first year, voters are going to question loudly HOW MUCH????
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I know heist movies often end with the crooks quitting the country, but I'm not sure that Team Rishi will be that blatant.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
If you knew her you’d appreciate how awful she would be. She is entirely self-centred.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
"[You should consider a coat] if you're dog is very young, very old, or if they're very underweight for a medical reason," PDSA vet Dr Catherine Burke tells BBC News.
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
Let me repeat, none.
(Cross posted at Patterico's.)
It seems to be a particularly American problem. It does exist in Europe and the UK, but only on a very small scale by comparison with the US.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
Andy_JS said: "It seems to be a particularly American problem. It does exist in Europe and the UK, but only on a very small scale by comparison with the US."
And I hope for your sakes, it stays that way or, even better, shrinks as you learn from our mistakes.
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
Let me repeat, none.
(Cross posted at Patterico's.)
It seems to be a particularly American problem. It does exist in Europe and the UK, but only on a very small scale by comparison with the US.
The collapse of Opium production in Afghanistan means it's very possible Fentanyl use might go up massively in Europe very soon
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I know heist movies often end with the crooks quitting the country, but I'm not sure that Team Rishi will be that blatant.
The point is, who would take them? They'd be circling the globe until some poor country decided to accept them out of pity and because they were running out of fuel - Rwanda perhaps?
I can picture a North Korean propaganda film. Plucky Rishi, filmed to make him appear almost as tall as The Great Leader using very expensive special effects. Crowd applauds. Rishi bows before realising the applause was for The Great Leader. Rishi condemned and theatrically dragged off to a re-education camp modelled on the Rwanda plan.
Then The Great Leader introduces the true hero of our story - meet First Hero of the Peoples Republic and Empress of the Pork Markets - Liz Truss. She bows to great applause and The Great Leader realises he has met his match. She holds her necklace to the crowd, they go wild, and...
... All this and more if you subscribe to The Flint Knappers Gazette. Only £warm_minibreak a month for 1/2 an issue.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
I think a certain amount of skepticism is warranted, both on whether that promise is kept, and, if it is, supplies from China will just be replaced by supplies from elsewhere (including the US).
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
Let me repeat, none.
(Cross posted at Patterico's.)
It seems to be a particularly American problem. It does exist in Europe and the UK, but only on a very small scale by comparison with the US.
I've been quite surprised it's not made itself felt here in Glasgow. Historically not exactly shy of an opioid. Though I've seen people mention it's increasingly being mixed with other 'highs' by the Albanian folk who seem to have taken over the local 'dealerships'.
Possibly just a supply route issue that will be resolved in time.
I think a certain amount of skepticism is warranted, both on whether that promise is kept, and, if it is, supplies from China will just be replaced by supplies from elsewhere (including the US).
I was listening to a World Service show a while back and they were talking about the massive problems some cities in Pakistan were having with it. Seems like a less than ideal situation across large parts of the world. I suspect the US is just being more reported in the media.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
Wouldn't it be better for them to make sensible steps - like we've discussed before (like proper offshore processing centers) - rather than rushing to implement a scheme that will (at most) take a tiny fraction of asylum seekers at enormous cost?
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
It is not just the acquitted - it is anyone accused who is in the public domain. I've been criticising this for a long time. I don't see how the answer is making a massive example (primed in a clumsy sort of way to go viral on social media) out of one apparently proven set of false allegations. But even if it is right that this case got publicised because of the circumstances, it is still turning the whole circus of arrest, police interview etc in to a kind of reality show and this is what I object to.
I understand your point, but I fail to see what possible remedy there is.
Fundamentally, it's not the job of the media to not report news because it is inconvenient to the person who is the news. And curtailing the freedoms of the press is can't be the answer, because that would certainly be abused by the rich and powerful to avoid any scrutiny of their behaviour.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
Wouldn't it be better for them to make sensible steps - like we've discussed before (like proper offshore processing centers) - rather than rushing to implement a scheme that will (at most) take a tiny fraction of asylum seekers at enormous cost?
Like I've said repeatedly, you run a government on the basis of appealing to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people, this is the sort of brain dead crap that ends up devouring your energy, and then you wonder why nothing in the country works anymore.
I did wonder whether that might be Boris's RedWall gateway back into Parliament, and then I checked out Lloyd's majority.
Used to be a Liberal seat, of course. The late unlamented Sir Cyril held it, and it was won by a couple of his Lib successors too, so the vote was tranferrable. Wonder if the yellows will go for it? Long way back, of course. One for OGH to illuminate for us, perhaps?
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
But the two offences, such as they are, are not at all equal. Politician says a mean thing and a court finds that substantively true? That's really not that big a deal, people say stupid stuff all the time. So personally I find the outcome of the libel case pretty immaterial and the whole thing much clearer.
Police lying about the incident to help prove he did it? That's an outrageous abuse of their position. Lying about something that did happen is no defence of anything after all, and we especially do not want the police fabricating things like that.
Someone lying about witnessing something obviously has no idea if what they are saying is true or not, so cannot even claim a noble motivation of trying to make sure he was punished for saying mean things, since they did not truly know. Their motivation therefore was not actually in support of a statement that was true - they were just fortunate that was the case.
I absolutely have sympathy for Mitchell on the matter, because he might well be an offensive arsehole who's a dick to people, but being a dick is not a crime. Police officers committed crimes to prove he was a dick, and others lied about him to stick the knife in. They should have left speculation to the media and political opponents, the lies were not necessary.
Lying about things doesn't magically become ok because luckily the person did the thing you lied about. Not from the police - they have to be held to that standard, with absolutely no nuance or wiggle room on these things.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
But the two offences, such as they are, are not at all equal. Politician says a mean thing and a court finds that substantively true? That's really not that big a deal, people say stupid stuff all the time. So personally I find the outcome of the libel case pretty immaterial and the whole thing much clearer.
Police lying about the incident to help prove he did it? That's an outrageous abuse of their position. Lying about something that did happen is no defence of anything after all, and we especially do not want the police fabricating things like that.
Someone lying about witnessing something obviously has no idea if what they are saying is true or not, so cannot even claim a noble motivation of trying to make sure he was punished for saying mean things, since they did not truly know. Their motivation therefore was not actually in support of a statement that was true - they were just fortunate that was the case.
I absolutely have sympathy for Mitchell on the matter, because he might well be an offensive arsehole who's a dick to people, but being a dick is not a crime. Police officers committed crimes to prove he was a dick, and others lied about him to stick the knife in. They should have left speculation to the media and political opponents, the lies were not necessary.
They don't need to be equal offences.
Mitchell lost his Cabinet post for behaving appallingly. The libel trial supports the conclusion that was fair, because people were correct to believe he did just that.
A policeman went to prison for fraudulently claiming to have witnessed the event as a member of the public. Others also lost their jobs.
It isn't a "who's the biggest turd in the toilet bowl" competition.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
I don't think that works at all. That's why if that happens the guilty person will be set free, because breaking the rules to punish them is unjustifiable and even if you know they did it they might now get away with it. In effect, we formally sympathise with guilty people with our rules by siding with them, even if guilty, if the police break their own rules.
Moreover, they weren't simply 'right to be angry', because if that's all that it was nothing was preventing them being angry about it to their heart's content. The problem was the action they took in response to that anger. They in essence engaged in a criminal conspiracy on the basis of nothing but hearsay.
Because remember, they didn't know it was true! They lied to get him sacked with no knowledge it was true. We lose sympathy for Mitchell because they were lucky it was?
I'll say no more on the subject, but personally I find it very straightforward to have sympathy with someone who faced being lied about by the police, even if they did make the statements in question.
Principally because I worry how many other people lied about by police don't get to prove that lie and face far more consequences.
Comments
A devastating Ofsted report into a failing children's home run by the private company AP Care Homes Limited has been restored, after briefly being removed by Ofsted...
...AP is the company of Ampika Pickston, of Real Housewives of Cheshire fame. Her partner is David Sullivan, who has a financial interest in AP. Pickston also has a popular OnlyFans account.
https://twitter.com/MartinBarrow/status/1747669259650511135
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67957726
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
https://news.sky.com/story/first-minister-humza-yousafs-brother-in-law-arrested-over-window-fall-incident-13049499
"The brother-in-law of First Minister Humza Yousaf has been arrested in connection with an incident where a man fell from a flat."
This follows him being nicked a day or two earlier on suspicion of drugs-related offences in Dundee.
As Humza's wife has been very prominent in the media in recent weeks demanding Scotland become a safe haven for displaced Palestinians including another of her brothers, this news is hardly optimal in terms of generating public sympathy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/11/nadia-el-nakla-wife-of-humza-yousaf-urges-ministers-to-let-her-host-palestinian-brother
"Rebellion has melted away🚨
Rebel source says a “small number” of MPs will vote against the Rwanda bill at third reading.
They say the “overwhelming likelihood is the bill will pass quite comfortably”
They say this isn’t the end of the matter and if the Lords weaken the bill, MPs will toughen the bill. “The PM is by no means out of the woods.”"
https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1747682336546660829?s=20
An expensive private school education: Worth Its weight in networking opportunities and unflinching self confidence.
I have no skin in the Post Office game, but the fact that someone so clearly inept could make it as a Captain of commerce was vomit inducing.
I once cycled from Settle over to Wharfedale in summer. Pretty much instantly, at the watershed, the landscape changed colour from deep green to beige. Though I accept Settle is the Dales too, and that the western Dales at least can be a tad moist.
Anyway. Central Manchester tonight is absolutely sparkling in the icy January air. Makes you glad to be alive.
Ironic since when I read a lot I was crazy busy and didn't have much time (although I made it somehow). Now I have the time but can't seem to invest it in that way.
Why? I think I know but it's a bit philosophically negative and hard to express in a way that wouldn't lower everyone's spirits. And that's not what I'm all about.
So, yes, I hope you regain the habit if you truly want to.
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
With a phone in your pocket, you're never truly alone. Which is nice. But also means you miss out on what you used to do when you were truly alone.
Thatt said, I just finished my second Christmas book today: Good Pop Bad Pop by Jarvis Cocker. Very enjoyable and also very easy reading. The latter is much undervalued - as we read less, we pressure ourselves to read better, and ease of consumption gets overlooked.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
My Aussie ex said she had never seen as many shades of green as she did in England/Scotland.
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
And, for the record, I was equally shocked when the police - THE POLICE - attempted to fit a cabinet minister up.
BBC News - Bronson Battersby: Review after boy, two, and dad found dead
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-68007571
When he became PM, a delegation from ACPO(O) visited No.10 and gave a list of demands to Cameron, including the gundecking of various enquiries (such as Hillsborough related). Cameron is supposed to have asked "Who do these people think they are?"
When it became clear that their demands were not being met, various members of the SMT declared that the "Government was gong to war with the police".
In that context, going after members of the government should have been expected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68010501
RIP.
I reckon one of the reasons I don’t read much is that at night I like to just have lamps on rather than overhead lights, and ours aren’t in the right place to read under.
That and two kids under four, an unhealthy internet arguing hobby, and no commute to work
I'm more puzzled as to why Sunak's intellectually subnormal Government didn't amend the bill to achieve some of the rebel goals itself. It could also have accepted the 'left wing' amendment of Robert Buckland, aimed at holding Rwanda to its safety commitments.
But for some, the Brexit Wars was their happy place, and they won that battle. So why not re-enact it? (Lots of reasons, of course, boiling down to the shape of the battle being different. They just haven't noticed.)
For others, things like this (being able to vote to define their own reality independent of any external constraint) was why they wanted Brexit.
A police officer was convicted for sending an email purporting to be from a civilian witness, corroborating his colleagues' account (which was clearly fraudulent). Other officers got into trouble professionally for leaks etc.
Yet, ultimately, Mitchell lost the libel trial on the basis that, notwithstanding the conduct of others involved, the central allegation about his own behaviour was (on the balance of probabilities) substantively true.
Essentially everyone, bar the Sun newspaper, lost.
Given it was supposed to be a random passerby, one of the worst forgeries in the history of “hold my beer and watch this”
Terrible situation all around that one - the Police Federation lost all respect from me when they openly lied about what had been said in a meeting with Mitchell, which he proved when playing a recording of it.
Apparently the London Mayoral race has started - four months of this, be still my beating heart. Rob Hayward writes a fairly anodyne piece for the Standard:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-favourite-mayor-of-london-polls-underestimate-tories-susan-hall-b1132882.html
Yes, Khan is in a weaker position than last time but Hall's is hardly any better. Three years ago, just before the Mayoral election, a Panelbase poll showed Labour ahead 47-32 in London but in the end Khan won the first vote 40-35. The latest Ashcroft poll from last November had Labour ahead 51-23.
It's possible both Khan and Hall will lose votes to the Greens, LDs and other candidates but Khan, even with his unpopularity, starts the campaign in a strong position and I suspect the election is his to lose.
Galloway might take some Muslim votes in the eastern boroughs but I'm not sure he has the cachet he once did. Corbyn would be a wildcard and would make Khan's life much more difficult.
The other key will be looking at the Conservative-held Westminster seats in London on the new boundaries - turnout in 2021 was 42% and will probably be similar so it's only a rough guide as to whether Labour and the LDs are really making headway in the London suburbs in places like Beckenham & Penge for example.
In that respect Dorries at least is at least clear.
"Rachel Reeves has hinted at tax cuts for top earners as the shadow chancellor attempts to recast Labour as the party of economic growth...............
However, asked if she agreed that she wanted lower taxes on workers “across the spectrum”, including those earning above £100,000, the shadow chancellor responded: “Yes”."
I wonder if she might restore the PA to everyone?
And partially mitigate it by making 45% threshold start at £100k.
Looks as if we can compare notes
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains.
"All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
I don't really see how you do it in a practical way without naming names. For serious crimes, the person charged is physically absent for a period on remand at the very least. It will be known to most of the people who matter in their community, and not naming gives rise to huge amounts of speculation - much of it about people with no connection at all to the case.
The whole process is clearly horrible for an accused person, and particularly horrible if they are innocent. But that's also true if they are never formally named but everyone who matters knows (plus that approach drags in people who are wholly unrelated to the matter). Factually stating what the allegation is, who has been accused, what evidence has been presented, and the outcome, is the least worst way to do it, and consistent with justice being seen to be done as well as actually done.
But like Horizon, the government have long gone past the point where they can admit that it was an idea drawn on the back of a beermat. So even ministers who recognise it's fundamental batsoness have to keep up the pretence.
And yes, a May election allows them to stop pretending soon. But at the cost of acknowledging defeat.
What killed him was that the central allegation was really odd. "Pleb" is such a strange, archaic term that it lends credence to the tale. It could, of course, have been made up. But I'd have been inclined to agree with the libel judge that it probably wasn't.
A friend of mine, an employment lawyer, recalls a bullying and discrimination claim where he was defending a large company. One of the allegations was that the claimant (who I think was Spanish or something) was routinely referred to by colleagues as "French paki hands". That's when he knew the case was lost for his client - the claim was just so bizarre as to be completely credible.
However, let us just say all goes perfectly for the Cons. The plane takes off for Rwanda with Sunak, Braverman, Jenrick and Gullis linking arms to perform interprative dance on the runway beneath a massive Union flag. So what? The next day the small boats are still coming, the Rwanda facilities are filled by less than one day of smal boat arrivals. After all of the BS how do you think anyone outside the pro-Con bubble is going to react?
When you trumpet your plan and it fails then what happens next? You can only assume the aim is for the great plan to be thwarted and/or implemented within a day or two of the polls opening.
If this was all on Isaac Levido's advice then I can only assume that he is a member of the Labour Party
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
"[You should consider a coat] if you're dog is very young, very old, or if they're very underweight for a medical reason," PDSA vet Dr Catherine Burke tells BBC News.
How to look after pets in cold weather
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68005681
Where have all the subeds gone
Long time passing...
Worth reading and watching: This story on the sad life and death of Levi Evanson.
https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-homeless-fentanyl-drug-crisis-lexi-evanson-death-homelessness-housing-addiction-addicts-heroin-drugs-encampments-camps-ballard-downtown-king-county-western-washington#
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
Let me repeat, none.
(Cross posted at Patterico's.)
And I hope for your sakes, it stays that way or, even better, shrinks as you learn from our mistakes.
Then The Great Leader introduces the true hero of our story - meet First Hero of the Peoples Republic and Empress of the Pork Markets - Liz Truss. She bows to great applause and The Great Leader realises he has met his match. She holds her necklace to the crowd, they go wild, and...
... All this and more if you subscribe to The Flint Knappers Gazette. Only £warm_minibreak a month for 1/2 an issue.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-xi-meet-us-china-military-economic-tensions-grind-2023-11-15/
I think a certain amount of skepticism is warranted, both on whether that promise is kept, and, if it is, supplies from China will just be replaced by supplies from elsewhere (including the US).
Possibly just a supply route issue that will be resolved in time.
Woo.
Fundamentally, it's not the job of the media to not report news because it is inconvenient to the person who is the news. And curtailing the freedoms of the press is can't be the answer, because that would certainly be abused by the rich and powerful to avoid any scrutiny of their behaviour.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
Police lying about the incident to help prove he did it? That's an outrageous abuse of their position. Lying about something that did happen is no defence of anything after all, and we especially do not want the police fabricating things like that.
Someone lying about witnessing something obviously has no idea if what they are saying is true or not, so cannot even claim a noble motivation of trying to make sure he was punished for saying mean things, since they did not truly know. Their motivation therefore was not actually in support of a statement that was true - they were just fortunate that was the case.
I absolutely have sympathy for Mitchell on the matter, because he might well be an offensive arsehole who's a dick to people, but being a dick is not a crime. Police officers committed crimes to prove he was a dick, and others lied about him to stick the knife in. They should have left speculation to the media and political opponents, the lies were not necessary.
Lying about things doesn't magically become ok because luckily the person did the thing you lied about. Not from the police - they have to be held to that standard, with absolutely no nuance or wiggle room on these things.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
Mitchell lost his Cabinet post for behaving appallingly. The libel trial supports the conclusion that was fair, because people were correct to believe he did just that.
A policeman went to prison for fraudulently claiming to have witnessed the event as a member of the public. Others also lost their jobs.
It isn't a "who's the biggest turd in the toilet bowl" competition.
Moreover, they weren't simply 'right to be angry', because if that's all that it was nothing was preventing them being angry about it to their heart's content. The problem was the action they took in response to that anger. They in essence engaged in a criminal conspiracy on the basis of nothing but hearsay.
Because remember, they didn't know it was true! They lied to get him sacked with no knowledge it was true. We lose sympathy for Mitchell because they were lucky it was?
I'll say no more on the subject, but personally I find it very straightforward to have sympathy with someone who faced being lied about by the police, even if they did make the statements in question.
Principally because I worry how many other people lied about by police don't get to prove that lie and face far more consequences.