On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
Clearly sad Charles has cancer. But the way the media fawn over it, “public shock” etc is ridiculous. I highly doubt most people even care.
Cancer is awful. But “public shock?” We need public shock at the absurd notion that people won’t get a pension til they are 71. I don’t say “will have to work”. So many won’t be capable of doing their current job til 71, and if they did there would be major unemployment issues as we don’t have enough jobs. But apart from that it’s a top idea.
Let’s have more public shock aimed at the things we should be shocked about. To arise public anger and thus force political solutions. Old man has cancer shock is not one of them.
It is not that they won't get one til 71. That is currently only a proposal from one group. Others are available and the next review will take place up to 2 years into the next parliament.
I rarely agree with Zoe WIlliams but she is right, we need to be more like France on this.
Of course scrapping the triple lock to make it more affordable for future generations, those currently paying, like you and I, does not even come into the mix.
Even if this does not happen the pension age will go up after the next GE. Effectively we work longer to keep the Tories client bases pensions where they are.
Another reason not to vote for them.
The triple lock is a red herring. The greater scandal is higher rate tax relief on pension contributions means that those well-off MPs and pundits calling for an end to the triple lock are benefiting twice as much as ordinary people. The better-off can also use salary sacrifice to increase their pension contributions and hence tax relief, reduce income tax and keep child benefits so crucial to families on £100,000 a year.
Probably less so, in their cases, as more and more people are paying higher rate tax on marginal pension income, as fiscal drag turns more and more into higher rate taxpayers. The idea was always to get tax relief at higher rate and then take your pension subject to basic rate tax (or, for very low earners, no tax at all). The first 25% is tax free, up to the limit, of course, but still.
On the subject of cancer, my mother died in hospital yesterday one week after being diagnosed with lung cancer. To everyone who has cancer and their families, thoughts and prayers.
And half of respondents say it's essential that verdicts are reached on his indictments before the election. Only 11% say they should be delayed until after the election.
The democrats think that Trump is certain to lose because of the above. The risk that the strategy doesn't work, with all the adverse consequences for them, the USA, and the world... is one that they are happy to go with. But they aren't really factoring in that his appeal kept inexplicably rising in 2016 and could well do so again.
Clearly sad Charles has cancer. But the way the media fawn over it, “public shock” etc is ridiculous. I highly doubt most people even care.
Cancer is awful. But “public shock?” We need public shock at the absurd notion that people won’t get a pension til they are 71. I don’t say “will have to work”. So many won’t be capable of doing their current job til 71, and if they did there would be major unemployment issues as we don’t have enough jobs. But apart from that it’s a top idea.
Let’s have more public shock aimed at the things we should be shocked about. To arise public anger and thus force political solutions. Old man has cancer shock is not one of them.
It is not that they won't get one til 71. That is currently only a proposal from one group. Others are available and the next review will take place up to 2 years into the next parliament.
I rarely agree with Zoe WIlliams but she is right, we need to be more like France on this.
Of course scrapping the triple lock to make it more affordable for future generations, those currently paying, like you and I, does not even come into the mix.
Even if this does not happen the pension age will go up after the next GE. Effectively we work longer to keep the Tories client bases pensions where they are.
Another reason not to vote for them.
The triple lock is a red herring. The greater scandal is higher rate tax relief on pension contributions means that those well-off MPs and pundits calling for an end to the triple lock are benefiting twice as much as ordinary people. The better-off can also use salary sacrifice to increase their pension contributions and hence tax relief, reduce income tax and keep child benefits so crucial to families on £100,000 a year.
Triple Lock is not really a red herring, it does need to be reformed/removed, but I do agree about higher rate tax relief needing to be scrapped too. Both need addressing.
The problem with the current approach of just continually increasing the age at which people get the pension is it penalises the poor, the ill and the most vulnerable while preserving benefits for those who do not need them.
Also Labour re-introducing the lifetime cap would be a good thing.
Constantly fiddling with pensions and allowances (which all governments seem incapable of resisting) only does one thing: undermine people's confidence in pensions and saving into them. Thus, increasing the burden of care on the State, ultimately.
At the age of 41 I have relatively little confidence I'll be allowed to drawdown or secure my private pension in full, or if it will even be available when I eventually do retire.
It only takes one Corbynite administration to be elected to office, and nationalise the lot, and that's it.
This problem is true of all types of asset though. The current 'conservative' government are not particularly keen on private property, effectively legislating to destroy all the value in on well established asset class (freeholds), which impacts on pension wealth.
I think it is a fallacy to run up millions in a SIPP for the reasons you set out though; it is ripe for raiding.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
And half of respondents say it's essential that verdicts are reached on his indictments before the election. Only 11% say they should be delayed until after the election.
Most will be disappointed. At this stage it looks like only one of the criminal cases might reach a decision before the election, and that's in question too as the supreme court could drag out the immunity appeal stuff to prevent it happening.
The documents case should be able to but won't, as everyone seems to be sure the judge will push it back.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
Clearly sad Charles has cancer. But the way the media fawn over it, “public shock” etc is ridiculous. I highly doubt most people even care.
Cancer is awful. But “public shock?” We need public shock at the absurd notion that people won’t get a pension til they are 71. I don’t say “will have to work”. So many won’t be capable of doing their current job til 71, and if they did there would be major unemployment issues as we don’t have enough jobs. But apart from that it’s a top idea.
Let’s have more public shock aimed at the things we should be shocked about. To arise public anger and thus force political solutions. Old man has cancer shock is not one of them.
It is not that they won't get one til 71. That is currently only a proposal from one group. Others are available and the next review will take place up to 2 years into the next parliament.
I rarely agree with Zoe WIlliams but she is right, we need to be more like France on this.
Of course scrapping the triple lock to make it more affordable for future generations, those currently paying, like you and I, does not even come into the mix.
Even if this does not happen the pension age will go up after the next GE. Effectively we work longer to keep the Tories client bases pensions where they are.
Another reason not to vote for them.
The triple lock is a red herring. The greater scandal is higher rate tax relief on pension contributions means that those well-off MPs and pundits calling for an end to the triple lock are benefiting twice as much as ordinary people. The better-off can also use salary sacrifice to increase their pension contributions and hence tax relief, reduce income tax and keep child benefits so crucial to families on £100,000 a year.
Triple Lock is not really a red herring, it does need to be reformed/removed, but I do agree about higher rate tax relief needing to be scrapped too. Both need addressing.
The problem with the current approach of just continually increasing the age at which people get the pension is it penalises the poor, the ill and the most vulnerable while preserving benefits for those who do not need them.
Also Labour re-introducing the lifetime cap would be a good thing.
Constantly fiddling with pensions and allowances (which all governments seem incapable of resisting) only does one thing: undermine people's confidence in pensions and saving into them. Thus, increasing the burden of care on the State, ultimately.
At the age of 41 I have relatively little confidence I'll be allowed to drawdown or secure my private pension in full, or if it will even be available when I eventually do retire.
It only takes one Corbynite administration to be elected to office, and nationalise the lot, and that's it.
I agree.
I am planning partial retirement this year under the revised rules, before they change again. I am planning to work part time still.
Clearly sad Charles has cancer. But the way the media fawn over it, “public shock” etc is ridiculous. I highly doubt most people even care.
They probably do care and care or not, it is still a shock. However, you can at least take comfort that searches for prostate cancer symptoms have shot up, and in the coming days, the adequacy of cancer treatment for ordinary people will come under the spotlight.
Where I will agree with you is that news broadcasts quickly become boring as reporters endlessly and repetitively spin out the two or three facts at their disposal. The newsreader tells us what has been announced; the Royal reporter tells us what has been announced and adds that the rest of the RF will be under pressure; the Political editor tells us what has been announced and tells us Sunak tweeted and Starmer tweeted; and so on ad nauseam.
This has been the result of instant news unfortunately. Got to fill those schedules and webpages.
I wish the King well. I think people do care, though most probably do not in a deferential way. Cancer has touched the lives of everyone in some way, and most people are aware of the pain, upset and anxiety a diagnosis brings, so there will be a lot who empathise today.
ITV news had an hour of it from 6PM last night. Way OTT especially as so little is known.
Obviously it has to be reported. It's the unending procession of royal sycophants appearing to be interviewed that's really wearing.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
As far as I'm aware, we have very few solid details on this case. It might be that what the armed officer did was murder: or it could be a split-second decision that was made the wrong way. Or any number of options in between.
I'm against routinely arming police; but we do need *some* armed police. It's a massively difficult job that requires very good training and the correct people chosen for the role. In return, we need to understand that they may be placed in situations where split-second decisions are required, for the safety of the public and/or themselves. And if those decisions are incorrect, they need some kind of support.
I can understand why some officers may feel that, if they get put into a difficult situation, they may not get the support they feel they deserve if they make the 'wrong' decision. Or even in some circumstances, the 'right' decision.
IANAL, but it's interesting that it is a murder charge, and not a manslaughter one. I wonder what that indicates.
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
And half of respondents say it's essential that verdicts are reached on his indictments before the election. Only 11% say they should be delayed until after the election.
The democrats think that Trump is certain to lose because of the above. The risk that the strategy doesn't work, with all the adverse consequences for them, the USA, and the world... is one that they are happy to go with. But they aren't really factoring in that his appeal kept inexplicably rising in 2016 and could well do so again.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
Trouble is, it's also a good way to weed out well-intentioned people who do not want to risk imprisonment when a split-second judgement is second-guessed 18 months later.
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
Clearly sad Charles has cancer. But the way the media fawn over it, “public shock” etc is ridiculous. I highly doubt most people even care.
They probably do care and care or not, it is still a shock. However, you can at least take comfort that searches for prostate cancer symptoms have shot up, and in the coming days, the adequacy of cancer treatment for ordinary people will come under the spotlight.
Where I will agree with you is that news broadcasts quickly become boring as reporters endlessly and repetitively spin out the two or three facts at their disposal. The newsreader tells us what has been announced; the Royal reporter tells us what has been announced and adds that the rest of the RF will be under pressure; the Political editor tells us what has been announced and tells us Sunak tweeted and Starmer tweeted; and so on ad nauseam.
This has been the result of instant news unfortunately. Got to fill those schedules and webpages.
I wish the King well. I think people do care, though most probably do not in a deferential way. Cancer has touched the lives of everyone in some way, and most people are aware of the pain, upset and anxiety a diagnosis brings, so there will be a lot who empathise today.
ITV news had an hour of it from 6PM last night. Way OTT especially as so little is known.
Obviously it has to be reported. It's the unending procession of royal sycophants appearing to be interviewed that's really wearing.
I commented to my wife last night that this will be a nice little earner for a fair few of them.
Yes, it needs reporting but an hour non stop was excessive.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
I think we need to wait to see the case against the officer first, before judging them.
Perhaps that is the approach they should have taken as well.
Except, if they think the safest course of action is to not do that job just in case. Ultimately, it's their call. It's not a job I'd be especially keen to do.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
Trouble is, it's also a good way to weed out well-intentioned people who do not want to risk imprisonment when a split-second judgement is second-guessed 18 months later.
A well-intentioned person would accept that using a firearm against a member of the public (whom you serve) will mean you will come under a very high level of scrutiny.
The officer is innocent until proven guilty - not immune from prosecution.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
But he'll Own The Woke Liberals.
And that's what's important, isn't it?
It really does seem to boil down to that. Annoying all the right people and owning the libs takes precedence over the UK’s security and economy.
Two important things to understand about the MAGA Taylor Swift conspiracy:
1. Her football playing boyfriend once did an ad encouraging people to get their COVID jab. This damned him in the eyes of many MAGAts.
2. Swift is richer than Trump (and she made the money herself rather than by inheriting it). This is supremely upsetting and has to be denied.
I love the fact that she appears to be trolling him by doing nothing whatsoever other than lead her life as normal (normal for her being rather different to the rest of us). It is entirely self inflicted and gives more every time she gets mentioned for day to day activities like winning a Grammy! It is a bit similar to Nicki Haley, although in her case she is taking advantage of the opportunity given to her by Trump obviously. If they had left well alone she would become a footnote. Now she is in the media non stop trolling him. SNL was a very good performance and must really rile MAGA. Worth watching.
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
On the subject of 'injustices', this is a rather shocking read - a death in custody of someone held on remand for 'breach of the peace'. It sounds like a psychotic episode. The cause of death has troubling echoes of george floyd. And then the prison officers were subsequently granted immunity from prosecution. I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
It would be good to get DavidL's take on this. The Crown Office have form with granting unconditional immunity, infamously with the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Although there is also this, when immunity is not granted:-
Trouble is, it's also a good way to weed out well-intentioned people who do not want to risk imprisonment when a split-second judgement is second-guessed 18 months later.
A well-intentioned person would accept that using a firearm against a member of the public (whom you serve) will mean you will come under a very high level of scrutiny.
The officer is innocent until proven guilty - not immune from prosecution.
Indeed. From their perspective though, it may look very different. Indeed, it may look as though if enough people protest, the authorities will charge you with murder.
I'm not saying that's the correct view, but it's wrong to suggest that anyone who chooses to stop being a forearms officer because of this is in some way a 'bad apple'. If anything, I'd expect the selection process to ensure that they're some of the 'better' officers. That may be a false expectation, though...
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
The situation ought to be a lot better for the LibDems. But somehow they’re not capitalising on it.
An invisible leader is the main problem. Also just their internal contradictions. Nimbyism vs BUILD BUILD BUILD being one. Then silly statements like “there just needs to be a ceasefire in Gaza and the hostages returned”. It all adds up to a difficulty to take them seriously. And that’s without getting to their dodgy behaviour on Brexit at the last election, the hang ups from tuition fees and the grubby post Westminster careers that their Coalition figures pursued.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
The situation ought to be a lot better for the LibDems. But somehow they’re not capitalising on it.
An invisible leader is the main problem. Also just their internal contradictions. Nimbyism vs BUILD BUILD BUILD being one. Then silly statements like “there just needs to be a ceasefire in Gaza and the hostages returned”. It all adds up to a difficulty to take them seriously. And that’s without getting to their dodgy behaviour on Brexit at the last election, the hang ups from tuition fees and the grubby post Westminster careers that their Coalition figures pursued.
NOTA for me.
Yes, but apart from that, the Lib Dems are a great choice, no?
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
There we have it again: blinded by your partisanship, in this case against the Tories.
Such a tragedy to see this happen to an intelligent man. But that's where we are.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
There we have it again: blinded by your partisanship, in this case against the Tories.
Such a tragedy to see this happen to an intelligent man. But that's where we are.
It is your deep partisanship that makes you incapable of admitting what you know is true: Trump and the GOP are a direct threat to fundamental UK security and economic interests. A number of prominent Tories are on the record as supporting Trump to become US President. You have no answer to this truth except to attack me because I speak it.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
"Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine..."
I do wonder, at times. Leaving aside the GOP's actions, Biden's support for Ukraine has been both vocal but restrained in action. I don't know if this is because his own support for Ukraine is lacklustre, or he feels the politics for more fervent support isn't there, or both.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
"Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine..."
I do wonder, at times. Leaving aside the GOP's actions, Biden's support for Ukraine has been both vocal but restrained in action. I don't know if this is because his own support for Ukraine is lacklustre, or he feels the politics for more fervent support isn't there, or both.
There is a very strong and longstanding non-intervention tradition in the US. All US presidents have to navigate it. It's to Biden's credit that, unlike Obama, he did not give into it with regards to Ukraine.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
There we have it again: blinded by your partisanship, in this case against the Tories.
Such a tragedy to see this happen to an intelligent man. But that's where we are.
It is your deep partisanship that makes you incapable of admitting what you know is true: Trump and the GOP are a direct threat to fundamental UK security and economic interests. A number of prominent Tories are on the record as supporting Trump to become US President. You have no answer to this truth except to attack me because I speak it.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
You do know that Obama refused to give arms to Ukraine when he was in office to avoid "provoking" Putin, whereas Trump did so in his first year of office, right?
Obama is not running for President. Obama is not telling Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine with direct and disastrous consequences for Ukraine. You now cannot credibly back a Trump presidency and claim to put UK security and economic interests above all other considerations.
I hold no candle for Trump. But avoid the derangement syndrome, please.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
Derangement is ignoring what is in front of your eyes. Biden is actively seeking to arm Ukraine, the GOP Congress is preventing him from doing so on Trump’s direct instructions. I understand it is uncomfortable for patriotic Tories to see such widespread Tory support for a man actively seeking to betray a key UK ally and so inflict fundamental harm on key UK security and economic interests, but that’s where we are.
There we have it again: blinded by your partisanship, in this case against the Tories.
Such a tragedy to see this happen to an intelligent man. But that's where we are.
It is your deep partisanship that makes you incapable of admitting what you know is true: Trump and the GOP are a direct threat to fundamental UK security and economic interests. A number of prominent Tories are on the record as supporting Trump to become US President. You have no answer to this truth except to attack me because I speak it.
Hilarious ad hom and victimhood.
Embarrassing.
He’s right though, you don’t even bother to respond to the points and just moan about partisanship.
The turn of some Tories toward Trump is deeply disturbing. One wants to assume you don’t support him yourself.
Comments
I am anticipating astonishment, outrage, protests, riots etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68204587
I think it is a fallacy to run up millions in a SIPP for the reasons you set out though; it is ripe for raiding.
QUEUE WANKERS ASSEMBLE!
Hundreds of armed police desert Met after officer charged in Chris Kaba case
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-desert-met-after-officer-charged-chris-kapa-murder/
The documents case should be able to but won't, as everyone seems to be sure the judge will push it back.
I am planning partial retirement this year under the revised rules, before they change again. I am planning to work part time still.
It's the unending procession of royal sycophants appearing to be interviewed that's really wearing.
As far as I'm aware, we have very few solid details on this case. It might be that what the armed officer did was murder: or it could be a split-second decision that was made the wrong way. Or any number of options in between.
I'm against routinely arming police; but we do need *some* armed police. It's a massively difficult job that requires very good training and the correct people chosen for the role. In return, we need to understand that they may be placed in situations where split-second decisions are required, for the safety of the public and/or themselves. And if those decisions are incorrect, they need some kind of support.
I can understand why some officers may feel that, if they get put into a difficult situation, they may not get the support they feel they deserve if they make the 'wrong' decision. Or even in some circumstances, the 'right' decision.
IANAL, but it's interesting that it is a murder charge, and not a manslaughter one. I wonder what that indicates.
EXCLUSIVE:
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
New @YouGov poll for @TimesRadio - The Election Station.
Yes, it needs reporting but an hour non stop was excessive.
And that's what's important, isn't it?
The officer is innocent until proven guilty - not immune from prosecution.
I'm not saying that's the correct view, but it's wrong to suggest that anyone who chooses to stop being a forearms officer because of this is in some way a 'bad apple'. If anything, I'd expect the selection process to ensure that they're some of the 'better' officers. That may be a false expectation, though...
NOTA for me.
Biden very probably directly encouraged Putin's invasion through his chaotic and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and both types of US administration have made dreadful decisions over Russia.
When you fear the law abiding you are getting it wrong.
Such a tragedy to see this happen to an intelligent man. But that's where we are.
I do wonder, at times. Leaving aside the GOP's actions, Biden's support for Ukraine has been both vocal but restrained in action. I don't know if this is because his own support for Ukraine is lacklustre, or he feels the politics for more fervent support isn't there, or both.
Embarrassing.
The turn of some Tories toward Trump is deeply disturbing. One wants to assume you don’t support him yourself.