I’m probably in a minority of one, and 100% Sunak was wrong to use trans in his diatribe against Starmer, especially at this time, but I don’t think the ‘joke’, such as it was, was transphobic. It was mocking Starmer and the difficulties he got into over defining what is a woman.
I think Rishi was just clumsy. He had a script, specifically badly prepped in the circumstances, and ... just went with it.
And as a wavering voter 'clumsy' isn't winning me over. Even against 'grey mist' - 'clumsy' loses out.
Here's something worse than clumsy which the Washington.
Biden stumbling mid sentence and confusing Macron with Mitterrand.
I get a sign-up page and nothing else I'm afraid.
'I’m attacked for being honest and saying the quiet part out loud - the part DC insiders only do in private.
I admire our President. I voted for him and campaigned for him. He has visited my home and been gracious to my family and our country.
But shame on all of you pretending everything is ok. You are leading us - and him - into a disaster, and you damn well know it'
You may need a twitter account?
Why should we have to pay for one? And all the other stuff that goes with signing up to personal social media?
Edit: not complaining about you personally. But Twitter has been really getting on my nose of late as a lot of organizations which I need to check on for one reason or another have not got used to the idea that a lot of their viewers have suddenly been disallowed access. Yet they expect their punters still to sign up.
Whilst I dislike the curent iteration of Twitter particularly, and social media in general, this does read a bit like you're complaining that a valuable service that you previously got completely free is now expecting you to give something back in return for using it.
When talking specifically about Brianna, didn't Sunak refer to her as a girl/woman? If so, he was right to do so but how does it sit with what he said previously?
I will happily use whatever pronouns and name someone wants, out of politeness. But pretending, in my head, that they are actually a woman? Can't make the leap.
Not sure there's a contradiction there, whether I'm right or wrong about the second half.
Pronouns...it's not polite...it's clarification dumbwit. If someone called Jerry, or Toni, emails me how the hell do I know if they are a man or a woman? Similarly, how do I know with many foreign names their gender? Am I a fountain of knowledge of all global gender names?
I fucking hate this made up culture war bollocks that the right perpetuate because they have run out of any genuine ideas to improve the world. But, heh..let's just stoke up some hatred instead....
The move towards pronouns in emails and social media profiles has the square root of bugger all to do with “clarification”, and you know it.
Starmer is genuinely furious and disbelieving I think.
Reeves kind of has to calm him down as he sits back when the speaker intervenes to calm the loons on tory bench.
Yes, that struck me. He's either a much better actor than I give him credit for or the comment really, genuinely got to him. He seemed lost for words. Barely made a point before he sat down again
Maybe he just doesn’t like all his U-Turns pointed out in public!
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
But how can we tell whether juries get things right in rape cases where there is often little evidence and its he said she said. In such cases it often comes down to the personal biases of the jurors. Its all very imperfect.
It's also about time we had another repeat PM. It would be a reassertion of parliamentary politics.
Theresa May excepted, recent PMs seem to quit the HoC at the earliest possible opportunity, which rather buggers up their chances of a comeback.
Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher.
But Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Home all stayed on for years after quitting. Indeed, Home served as Foreign Secretary under Heath before returning to the Lords in 1974.
Equally, I suppose you could argue none of them were now 'recent...'
(I was shocked today when one of my tutees said it was amazing how the BBC had put lots of 'old' episodes of Dr Who on iPlayer and it was amazing to see this guy Matt Smith in them...)
The most 'recent' of your examples ceased being PM nearly 45 years ago.
True, I am getting old but I have not yet descended to classing 45 years ago as 'recent'.
It's also about time we had another repeat PM. It would be a reassertion of parliamentary politics.
Theresa May excepted, recent PMs seem to quit the HoC at the earliest possible opportunity, which rather buggers up their chances of a comeback.
Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher.
But Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Home all stayed on for years after quitting. Indeed, Home served as Foreign Secretary under Heath before returning to the Lords in 1974.
Equally, I suppose you could argue none of them were now 'recent...'
(I was shocked today when one of my tutees said it was amazing how the BBC had put lots of 'old' episodes of Dr Who on iPlayer and it was amazing to see this guy Matt Smith in them...)
The most 'recent' of your examples ceased being PM nearly 45 years ago.
True, I am getting old but I have not yet descended to classing 45 years ago as 'recent'.
I am an historian. Anything since World War II is recent.
Phantom thread related rather than this one, but Sunak went badly wrong in the first five seconds of his answer well before the controversial bit. Grinning inanely whilst boasting about waiting lists coming down. It is a message that is key but just cannot be delivered with tiggerish enthusiasm and no empathy.
The takeaway for me is not really the controversy but a re-enforcement of my view that Sunak is really really bad at being PM and will get hammered in a campaign. Therefore, sorry Brenda, but we shall have two new PMs this year.
How do we get there from here, though?
In the past, Tory splits were fairly straightforward - wet vs dry, pro-Europe vs sceptic, moderniser vs core values, anti-Brexit vs pro, populism vs managerialism.
But now the party's split at least five or six ways, and the fracture lines run all over the map. Why risk an abbreviated contest that would risk leaving the wrong faction on top after the election? Better to put up with an incompetent-but-biddable Sunak for now, and have a proper deathmatch leadership election next year.
I certainly wouldn't rule out a VONC and subsequent leadership contest, especially if the locals are particularly bad (they may well be). But there are only fruitcakes and loons; half the parliamentary party is retiring (including much of the not-mental wing) and will be eyeing directorships and after-dinner jobs - will they have have the stomach to fight a Braverman coronation, or just think 'fuck it, I'm out, let them burn their own house down'?
Tough times to be a Tory.
The Tories were wanting to appoint Neil Warnock as caretaker manager until the end of the season, but he’s just signed up with Aberdeen, so is unavailable.
The father of murdered transgender teenager Brianna Ghey has demanded an apology from Rishi Sunak, saying he was "shocked" by the prime minister's comments in the Commons today.
Speaking to Sky News, Peter Spooner said Mr Sunak's remarks during PMQs, which the schoolgirl's mother Esther attended, were "degrading" and "absolutely dehumanising".
He said: "As the prime minister for our country to come out with degrading comments like he did, regardless of them being in relation to discussions in parliament, they are absolutely dehumanising.
"Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments and feel he should apologise for his remarks."
Fortunately the BBC seems to be hiding the story on Radio 4 after Blinken, Tucker, and a couple of others. Shelagh Fogarty on LBC was more critical of Starmer than Sunak.
Not sure if PB has this yet (still comments to read), but it seems that Tucker Carlson's claim that journalists have not bothered to approach Putin for an interview has been debunked by (I think) Sergei Lavrov pointing out that loads have approached, but they aren't interested in talking to them, as they will 'distort' the situation.
This is Carlson continuing his career as a useful idiot.
Indeed: I wouldn't be surprised if the in house newspaper of the British Communist Party ran interviews with politbureau members during the cold war.
It did not make them serious journalistic endeavors.
Sadly one of them was typing up his notes so furiously that his andropov.
It's also about time we had another repeat PM. It would be a reassertion of parliamentary politics.
Theresa May excepted, recent PMs seem to quit the HoC at the earliest possible opportunity, which rather buggers up their chances of a comeback.
Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher.
But Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Home all stayed on for years after quitting. Indeed, Home served as Foreign Secretary under Heath before returning to the Lords in 1974.
Equally, I suppose you could argue none of them were now 'recent...'
(I was shocked today when one of my tutees said it was amazing how the BBC had put lots of 'old' episodes of Dr Who on iPlayer and it was amazing to see this guy Matt Smith in them...)
The most 'recent' of your examples ceased being PM nearly 45 years ago.
True, I am getting old but I have not yet descended to classing 45 years ago as 'recent'.
I’ve quite enjoyed May the backbencher. More PMs should do it.
(Not being an MP doesn’t preclude interference, as Thatcher proved. Her comments on Tory policy were feared by opposition leaders almost until her death)
Phantom thread related rather than this one, but Sunak went badly wrong in the first five seconds of his answer well before the controversial bit. Grinning inanely whilst boasting about waiting lists coming down. It is a message that is key but just cannot be delivered with tiggerish enthusiasm and no empathy.
The takeaway for me is not really the controversy but a re-enforcement of my view that Sunak is really really bad at being PM and will get hammered in a campaign. Therefore, sorry Brenda, but we shall have two new PMs this year.
How do we get there from here, though?
In the past, Tory splits were fairly straightforward - wet vs dry, pro-Europe vs sceptic, moderniser vs core values, anti-Brexit vs pro, populism vs managerialism.
But now the party's split at least five or six ways, and the fracture lines run all over the map. Why risk an abbreviated contest that would risk leaving the wrong faction on top after the election? Better to put up with an incompetent-but-biddable Sunak for now, and have a proper deathmatch leadership election next year.
I certainly wouldn't rule out a VONC and subsequent leadership contest, especially if the locals are particularly bad (they may well be). But there are only fruitcakes and loons; half the parliamentary party is retiring (including much of the not-mental wing) and will be eyeing directorships and after-dinner jobs - will they have have the stomach to fight a Braverman coronation, or just think 'fuck it, I'm out, let them burn their own house down'?
Tough times to be a Tory.
The Tories were wanting to appoint Neil Warnock as caretaker manager until the end of the season, but he’s just signed up with Aberdeen, so is unavailable.
The father of murdered transgender teenager Brianna Ghey has demanded an apology from Rishi Sunak, saying he was "shocked" by the prime minister's comments in the Commons today.
Speaking to Sky News, Peter Spooner said Mr Sunak's remarks during PMQs, which the schoolgirl's mother Esther attended, were "degrading" and "absolutely dehumanising".
He said: "As the prime minister for our country to come out with degrading comments like he did, regardless of them being in relation to discussions in parliament, they are absolutely dehumanising.
"Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments and feel he should apologise for his remarks."
Fortunately the BBC seems to be hiding the story on Radio 4 after Blinken, Tucker, and a couple of others. Shelagh Fogarty on LBC was more critical of Starmer than Sunak.
Not sure if PB has this yet (still comments to read), but it seems that Tucker Carlson's claim that journalists have not bothered to approach Putin for an interview has been debunked by (I think) Sergei Lavrov pointing out that loads have approached, but they aren't interested in talking to them, as they will 'distort' the situation.
This is Carlson continuing his career as a useful idiot.
Indeed: I wouldn't be surprised if the in house newspaper of the British Communist Party ran interviews with politbureau members during the cold war.
It did not make them serious journalistic endeavors.
Sadly one of them was typing up his notes so furiously that his andropov.
Phantom thread related rather than this one, but Sunak went badly wrong in the first five seconds of his answer well before the controversial bit. Grinning inanely whilst boasting about waiting lists coming down. It is a message that is key but just cannot be delivered with tiggerish enthusiasm and no empathy.
The takeaway for me is not really the controversy but a re-enforcement of my view that Sunak is really really bad at being PM and will get hammered in a campaign. Therefore, sorry Brenda, but we shall have two new PMs this year.
How do we get there from here, though?
In the past, Tory splits were fairly straightforward - wet vs dry, pro-Europe vs sceptic, moderniser vs core values, anti-Brexit vs pro, populism vs managerialism.
But now the party's split at least five or six ways, and the fracture lines run all over the map. Why risk an abbreviated contest that would risk leaving the wrong faction on top after the election? Better to put up with an incompetent-but-biddable Sunak for now, and have a proper deathmatch leadership election next year.
I certainly wouldn't rule out a VONC and subsequent leadership contest, especially if the locals are particularly bad (they may well be). But there are only fruitcakes and loons; half the parliamentary party is retiring (including much of the not-mental wing) and will be eyeing directorships and after-dinner jobs - will they have have the stomach to fight a Braverman coronation, or just think 'fuck it, I'm out, let them burn their own house down'?
Tough times to be a Tory.
The Tories were wanting to appoint Neil Warnock as caretaker manager until the end of the season, but he’s just signed up with Aberdeen, so is unavailable.
The father of murdered transgender teenager Brianna Ghey has demanded an apology from Rishi Sunak, saying he was "shocked" by the prime minister's comments in the Commons today.
Speaking to Sky News, Peter Spooner said Mr Sunak's remarks during PMQs, which the schoolgirl's mother Esther attended, were "degrading" and "absolutely dehumanising".
He said: "As the prime minister for our country to come out with degrading comments like he did, regardless of them being in relation to discussions in parliament, they are absolutely dehumanising.
"Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments and feel he should apologise for his remarks."
Fortunately the BBC seems to be hiding the story on Radio 4 after Blinken, Tucker, and a couple of others. Shelagh Fogarty on LBC was more critical of Starmer than Sunak.
Not sure if PB has this yet (still comments to read), but it seems that Tucker Carlson's claim that journalists have not bothered to approach Putin for an interview has been debunked by (I think) Sergei Lavrov pointing out that loads have approached, but they aren't interested in talking to them, as they will 'distort' the situation.
This is Carlson continuing his career as a useful idiot.
Indeed: I wouldn't be surprised if the in house newspaper of the British Communist Party ran interviews with politbureau members during the cold war.
It did not make them serious journalistic endeavors.
Unfortunately your opinion of whether or not it is a serious journalist endeavour is irrelevant if the interview video gets millions of views and Putin gets his message such as it is out to the west.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
When talking specifically about Brianna, didn't Sunak refer to her as a girl/woman? If so, he was right to do so but how does it sit with what he said previously?
I will happily use whatever pronouns and name someone wants, out of politeness. But pretending, in my head, that they are actually a woman? Can't make the leap.
Not sure there's a contradiction there, whether I'm right or wrong about the second half.
Pronouns...it's not polite...it's clarification dumbwit. If someone called Jerry, or Toni, emails me how the hell do I know if they are a man or a woman? Similarly, how do I know with many foreign names their gender? Am I a fountain of knowledge of all global gender names?
I fucking hate this made up culture war bollocks that the right perpetuate because they have run out of any genuine ideas to improve the world. But, heh..let's just stoke up some hatred instead....
The move towards pronouns in emails and social media profiles has the square root of bugger all to do with “clarification”, and you know it.
It avoids the need to assume (sometimes incorrectly, more often in the case of those who don't fit binary genders), and it also avoids othering an already disadvantaged group, at no cost to anyone else. So yes, it's partly about clarification, and partly about not being a fuckwit. What's not to like?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
When talking specifically about Brianna, didn't Sunak refer to her as a girl/woman? If so, he was right to do so but how does it sit with what he said previously?
I will happily use whatever pronouns and name someone wants, out of politeness. But pretending, in my head, that they are actually a woman? Can't make the leap.
Not sure there's a contradiction there, whether I'm right or wrong about the second half.
Pronouns...it's not polite...it's clarification dumbwit. If someone called Jerry, or Toni, emails me how the hell do I know if they are a man or a woman? Similarly, how do I know with many foreign names their gender? Am I a fountain of knowledge of all global gender names?
I fucking hate this made up culture war bollocks that the right perpetuate because they have run out of any genuine ideas to improve the world. But, heh..let's just stoke up some hatred instead....
If you think it all comes from the right you are deluded. The reality is that left wing activists want a very different society. They have a simplistic world view in which various minority groups are to all intents and purposes the new proletariat. However this doesn't include Jews because they are deemed privileged. Fine. That is what they believe. Saying that people are fighting a 'culture war' because they happen to disagree with this stuff is childish.
The threat to free speech in universities comes largely from the left. It is gender critical feminists not trans activists being questioned by the police. It is 'progressive' activists who supported Hamas' vitriolic attacks on 7 October Worst of all it is law abiding Jews living in fear not radicals Islamists*
JK Rowling Hadley Freeman Julie Bindel Suzanne Moore Bari Weiss
How many more victims of the left's culture war do you need?
*You may deny that islamists are on the left to which I would simply ask - who is marching alongside them every week?
As far as I see, the world has got rapidly more complex and there is no coherant narrative about how it works. So people just look for simple explanations. Like the idea that the culture war is 'right wing paranoia'.
This week for Mr Sunak has been, um, notable and its still only Wednesday. He has been Truss-like in his deft popular touch and firm grip on reality.
On topic - Wellingborough looks gone. Possibly the only idea worse than selecting Mr Bone as candidate was selecting the girlfriend who Bone dumped his wife for. Reform are very active there and could split the anti-Con vote but they also may well be taking far more votes from those who would otherwise vote Con than from those minded to vote Lab.
Kingswood is rather more interesting though Lab should have found it easier. The Cons seem to have largely abandoned Wellingborough (no doubt due to the local party's idiotic candidate selection) and are throwing all they have at this contest. They are also running the Uxbridge playbook by focusing on a pro-car message against the local council and proclaiming the local nature of their candidate. Lab still seem to have far more boots on the ground despite also running an all-out campaign in Wellingborough. Reform are also active but not as much as in Wellingborough.
LDs and Greens are very quiet - Tactical Voting will be in full force.
Rochdale has its interest. Galloway will hoover up Gaza discontent especially in the local Muslim community. Rochdale Reform have been taking notes on candidate selection from the Wellingborough Cons and have selected the disgraced and frankly rather odd former local MP. So could Lab drop back and the Con vote hold up to produce some sort of a surprise? They have a pretty strong local candidate. It may be vanishingly unlikely but it still may be the best Con chance of a win in these three by-elections
“They are also running the Uxbridge playbook by focusing on a pro-car message against the local council”
The actual council is a Gloucestershire one, a recent Lib Dem and labour control despite Conservative larger party who were in power there 2015 to 23 , so not really like Uxbridge? but many services the people living there use is in Bristol that is a green council - my friend in Bristol, a green, thought kingswood was in Bristol, I had to explain the stats to her, yet she still has a point that it’s so close to the green power base they can get a power surge in this constituency by getting Lib Dem and Con and labour voters, depriving labour of a win. You might be able to add the green and Lab together after Labour lose Kingswood and Labour could have won but for the green vote.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Not sure Carl Beech is the best example here. From my recollection the only person who faced a jury in that mess was Carl Beech himself. Trump has faced a jury - admittedly not at the criminal standard and not for rape - and lost. Yes, it would have been better for the former President to have faced a proper trial for what he was alleged to do. But I think you are projecting and to put this accuser into the same bracket as Carl Beech doesn’t sit well.
Phantom thread related rather than this one, but Sunak went badly wrong in the first five seconds of his answer well before the controversial bit. Grinning inanely whilst boasting about waiting lists coming down. It is a message that is key but just cannot be delivered with tiggerish enthusiasm and no empathy.
The takeaway for me is not really the controversy but a re-enforcement of my view that Sunak is really really bad at being PM and will get hammered in a campaign. Therefore, sorry Brenda, but we shall have two new PMs this year.
How do we get there from here, though?
In the past, Tory splits were fairly straightforward - wet vs dry, pro-Europe vs sceptic, moderniser vs core values, anti-Brexit vs pro, populism vs managerialism.
But now the party's split at least five or six ways, and the fracture lines run all over the map. Why risk an abbreviated contest that would risk leaving the wrong faction on top after the election? Better to put up with an incompetent-but-biddable Sunak for now, and have a proper deathmatch leadership election next year.
I certainly wouldn't rule out a VONC and subsequent leadership contest, especially if the locals are particularly bad (they may well be). But there are only fruitcakes and loons; half the parliamentary party is retiring (including much of the not-mental wing) and will be eyeing directorships and after-dinner jobs - will they have have the stomach to fight a Braverman coronation, or just think 'fuck it, I'm out, let them burn their own house down'?
Tough times to be a Tory.
The Tories were wanting to appoint Neil Warnock as caretaker manager until the end of the season, but he’s just signed up with Aberdeen, so is unavailable.
The father of murdered transgender teenager Brianna Ghey has demanded an apology from Rishi Sunak, saying he was "shocked" by the prime minister's comments in the Commons today.
Speaking to Sky News, Peter Spooner said Mr Sunak's remarks during PMQs, which the schoolgirl's mother Esther attended, were "degrading" and "absolutely dehumanising".
He said: "As the prime minister for our country to come out with degrading comments like he did, regardless of them being in relation to discussions in parliament, they are absolutely dehumanising.
"Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments and feel he should apologise for his remarks."
Fortunately the BBC seems to be hiding the story on Radio 4 after Blinken, Tucker, and a couple of others. Shelagh Fogarty on LBC was more critical of Starmer than Sunak.
Not sure if PB has this yet (still comments to read), but it seems that Tucker Carlson's claim that journalists have not bothered to approach Putin for an interview has been debunked by (I think) Sergei Lavrov pointing out that loads have approached, but they aren't interested in talking to them, as they will 'distort' the situation.
This is Carlson continuing his career as a useful idiot.
Indeed: I wouldn't be surprised if the in house newspaper of the British Communist Party ran interviews with politbureau members during the cold war.
It did not make them serious journalistic endeavors.
Sadly one of them was typing up his notes so furiously that his andropov.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
On the point about dentists my father is running out of teeth and frankly it is starting to look a bit daft. I keep mentioning dentures etc to him but he doesn't seem interested. Trouble is he's always hated anything cosmetic.
On the point about dentists my father is running out of teeth and frankly it is starting to look a bit daft. I keep mentioning dentures etc to him but he doesn't seem interested. Trouble is he's always hated anything cosmetic.
They're also a pain to deal with, appearance aside.
My (private) dentist has obvious missing and misaligned teeth, but I'm sure they're in very healthy shape.
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
Labour will win the 2024 general election, don't worry. Tories are toast (and deservedly so)
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
😏 if you don’t like this u turn wait till the u turn on zero hours.
It’s not a real uturn on green policy intention anyway, the £28B is arbitrary figure, as Rishi himself pointed out in PMQs today, his treasury officials estimated just a part of the plan is £12B.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
You've missed out the single biggest bit of evidence - I hope not deliberately - which was his taped deposition.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Not sure Carl Beech is the best example here. From my recollection the only person who faced a jury in that mess was Carl Beech himself. Trump has faced a jury - admittedly not at the criminal standard and not for rape - and lost. Yes, it would have been better for the former President to have faced a proper trial for what he was alleged to do. But I think you are projecting and to put this accuser into the same bracket as Carl Beech doesn’t sit well.
I think the comparison is fairly accurate. In Carl Beech's case, thankfully we didn't have similar civil proceedings, and his account fell apart before it reached a criminal court, so justice prevailed. This is like his alleged abusers being sued when they denied his allegations. It is perverse, and nobody is doing themself any favours by denying it.
Phantom thread related rather than this one, but Sunak went badly wrong in the first five seconds of his answer well before the controversial bit. Grinning inanely whilst boasting about waiting lists coming down. It is a message that is key but just cannot be delivered with tiggerish enthusiasm and no empathy.
The takeaway for me is not really the controversy but a re-enforcement of my view that Sunak is really really bad at being PM and will get hammered in a campaign. Therefore, sorry Brenda, but we shall have two new PMs this year.
How do we get there from here, though?
In the past, Tory splits were fairly straightforward - wet vs dry, pro-Europe vs sceptic, moderniser vs core values, anti-Brexit vs pro, populism vs managerialism.
But now the party's split at least five or six ways, and the fracture lines run all over the map. Why risk an abbreviated contest that would risk leaving the wrong faction on top after the election? Better to put up with an incompetent-but-biddable Sunak for now, and have a proper deathmatch leadership election next year.
I certainly wouldn't rule out a VONC and subsequent leadership contest, especially if the locals are particularly bad (they may well be). But there are only fruitcakes and loons; half the parliamentary party is retiring (including much of the not-mental wing) and will be eyeing directorships and after-dinner jobs - will they have have the stomach to fight a Braverman coronation, or just think 'fuck it, I'm out, let them burn their own house down'?
Tough times to be a Tory.
The Tories were wanting to appoint Neil Warnock as caretaker manager until the end of the season, but he’s just signed up with Aberdeen, so is unavailable.
The father of murdered transgender teenager Brianna Ghey has demanded an apology from Rishi Sunak, saying he was "shocked" by the prime minister's comments in the Commons today.
Speaking to Sky News, Peter Spooner said Mr Sunak's remarks during PMQs, which the schoolgirl's mother Esther attended, were "degrading" and "absolutely dehumanising".
He said: "As the prime minister for our country to come out with degrading comments like he did, regardless of them being in relation to discussions in parliament, they are absolutely dehumanising.
"Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments and feel he should apologise for his remarks."
Fortunately the BBC seems to be hiding the story on Radio 4 after Blinken, Tucker, and a couple of others. Shelagh Fogarty on LBC was more critical of Starmer than Sunak.
Not sure if PB has this yet (still comments to read), but it seems that Tucker Carlson's claim that journalists have not bothered to approach Putin for an interview has been debunked by (I think) Sergei Lavrov pointing out that loads have approached, but they aren't interested in talking to them, as they will 'distort' the situation.
This is Carlson continuing his career as a useful idiot.
Indeed: I wouldn't be surprised if the in house newspaper of the British Communist Party ran interviews with politbureau members during the cold war.
It did not make them serious journalistic endeavors.
Unfortunately your opinion of whether or not it is a serious journalist endeavour is irrelevant if the interview video gets millions of views and Putin gets his message such as it is out to the west.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You know what all those cases have in common?
Juries threw them out.
You are equating a case where a jury heard all the evidence and found someone liable, with lots of trials where people were found not liable.
Edit to add: actually, they didn't even get as far as court
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Investing in clean-tech and the next industrial revolution is not spunking on tax cuts for millionaires.
US headed towards $3 trillion of investment in next gen green technology.
On the point about dentists my father is running out of teeth and frankly it is starting to look a bit daft. I keep mentioning dentures etc to him but he doesn't seem interested. Trouble is he's always hated anything cosmetic.
If he is wealthy then a full set of dental implants may be better than dentures. But if he doesn't want it, isn't interested and is happy as it is, why not let him choose?
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
If your lot hadn’t screwed the public finances whilst trashing the economy, we might be in a better place.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
It wasn’t part of day to day spending but came under investment . Borrowing to invest doesn’t normally scare the markets.
The UK needs investment not spineless caving in to a Tory party who shouldn’t have the gall to lecture anyone about spending.
Labour are doing their best to blow their poll lead .
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Investing in clean-tech and the next industrial revolution is not spunking on tax cuts for millionaires.
US headed towards $3 trillion of investment in next gen green technology.
We will be totally out of the game.
Yet again.
See as a prime example the silence around Rolls Royce's mini nukes where we should have the factories up and running with a commitment to buy the first 10 or 20 off the factory floor...
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
Labour will win the 2024 general election, don't worry. Tories are toast (and deservedly so)
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
I expect that the Starmer government will be pretty shite, but in FPTP there will need to be a rival government in waiting to win GE 2029.
I know that politics can be volatile, no one expected such a massive turnaround from Labour since 2019, but there seems to be a dearth of Tories willing to do a similar turnaround to centrism. No one will want them back when they double down on the policies that they lost on.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
You've missed out the single biggest bit of evidence - I hope not deliberately - which was his taped deposition.
He says she's not his type - well she's blonde and attractive so we can deduce that that he's lying there. But what does that tell us except that he's angry he's being accused of raping someone?
This is evidence of an alleged rape? Let's be serious.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
It is almost like there is a difference between investment and tax cuts.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
Labour will win the 2024 general election, don't worry. Tories are toast (and deservedly so)
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
I expect that the Starmer government will be pretty shite, but in FPTP there will need to be a rival government in waiting to win GE 2029.
I know that politics can be volatile, no one expected such a massive turnaround from Labour since 2019, but there seems to be a dearth of Tories willing to do a similar turnaround to centrism. No one will want them back when they double down on the policies that they lost on.
Starmer gets 2 terms IMO, possibly more.
At this rate he’ll be lucky to get one . It all looks spineless and caving at the Tories desperate attacks .
Reeves and her minions in the shadow Treasury team need to be told they’re in the Labour not Tory party .
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
Yep. All this 'pledging exact amounts' stuff is a bit of a nonsense. If it's pledged but unaffordable you don't do it. If it's affordable but not pledged you still can.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Not sure Carl Beech is the best example here. From my recollection the only person who faced a jury in that mess was Carl Beech himself. Trump has faced a jury - admittedly not at the criminal standard and not for rape - and lost. Yes, it would have been better for the former President to have faced a proper trial for what he was alleged to do. But I think you are projecting and to put this accuser into the same bracket as Carl Beech doesn’t sit well.
I think the comparison is fairly accurate. In Carl Beech's case, thankfully we didn't have similar civil proceedings, and his account fell apart before it reached a criminal court, so justice prevailed. This is like his alleged abusers being sued when they denied his allegations. It is perverse, and nobody is doing themself any favours by denying it.
Fair enough. That is your view. I disagree. The Carl Beech / Midland issue was a horrible mess. But you are adding an awful lot of hypotheticals in your “thankfully” - we didn’t and we can’t possibly know what would have happened. And I really see no comparison with the former President’s behaviour. Given Mr Beech ended up on the wrong side of a criminal case, do you really think he would have prevailed in a civil one?
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
It is almost like there is a difference between investment and tax cuts.
That's a bit of a stretch for ToryGuy to get his head around.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
And if he doesn't get a majority, what he does will depend on haggling with Lib Dems to get C+S through.
Basically, manifestoes are more a displacement activity for parties expecting to lose than a plan for parties expecting to win. See the Massive Green Plan- launched in 2021 when Labour can't have expected to implement it, edged back on in 2024 when they expect to have to deliver. The amount of green investment that happens between 2025 and 2028 is almost independent of what Labour are saying right now.
This isn't a good thing (there are a bunch of cobwebs where a check, balance or three ought to be) but it is how the system works. See also the Rwanda plan- now totemic for the government, not a hint of it in the 2019 manifesto.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
Utter tripe. Tax cuts mean businesses can invest and employ more people, people can spend more in the economy, extend their homes, upgrade their cars. That economic activity has a beneficial impact.
Government making enormous 'investments' in green has got disaster written all over it, and though I still wouldn't vote for SKS, I am a mite reassured to know that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country in the first term.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
You've missed out the single biggest bit of evidence - I hope not deliberately - which was his taped deposition.
He says she's not his type - well she's blonde and attractive so we can deduce that that he's lying there. But what does that tell us except that he's angry he's being accused of raping someone?
This is evidence of an alleged rape? Let's be serious.
Also: Carroll's lawyer asked Trump: “So, sir, I just want to confirm: It’s your testimony that E. Jean Carroll said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you?”
Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place.”
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
I’m rereading Dominic Sandbrook’s history of the early 80s and he makes the point that whatever Mrs Thatcher did or said about unemployment it never landed because fundamentally she couldn’t empathise with being poor, unlucky or depressed and people could sense that. I think that Sunak has the same problem. It is transparently obvious to everyone that he can’t understand what it’s like to be struggling so it doesn’t matter if he says the right things.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
Utter tripe. Tax cuts mean businesses can invest and employ more people, people can spend more in the economy, extend their homes, upgrade their cars. That economic activity has a beneficial impact.
Government making enormous 'investments' in green has got disaster written all over it, and though I still wouldn't vote for SKS, I am a mite reassured to know that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country in the first term.
He doesn't really have to. The Tories have helpfully done it for him already.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
You've missed out the single biggest bit of evidence - I hope not deliberately - which was his taped deposition.
He says she's not his type - well she's blonde and attractive so we can deduce that that he's lying there. But what does that tell us except that he's angry he's being accused of raping someone?
This is evidence of an alleged rape? Let's be serious.
Also: Carroll's lawyer asked Trump: “So, sir, I just want to confirm: It’s your testimony that E. Jean Carroll said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you?”
Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place.”
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
Labour will win the 2024 general election, don't worry. Tories are toast (and deservedly so)
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
That depends heavily on whether the Tories go all HY in opposition.
Meanwhile, Starmer has clearly heard the one about the tiger and the man who just needs to run faster than the other guy.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
Utter tripe. Tax cuts mean businesses can invest and employ more people, people can spend more in the economy, extend their homes, upgrade their cars. That economic activity has a beneficial impact.
Government making enormous 'investments' in green has got disaster written all over it, and though I still wouldn't vote for SKS, I am a mite reassured to know that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country in the first term.
He doesn't really have to. The Tories have helpfully done it for him already.
I’m rereading Dominic Sandbrook’s history of the early 80s and he makes the point that whatever Mrs Thatcher did or said about unemployment it never landed because fundamentally she couldn’t empathise with being poor, unlucky or depressed and people could sense that. I think that Sunak has the same problem. It is transparently obvious to everyone that he can’t understand what it’s like to be struggling so it doesn’t matter if he says the right things.
Consistently low unemployment (and high employment) is the 2010-2024 good news story, whether it’s the government’s doing or not. But their comms are so shit they barely mention it.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
Govt pisses money up against a wall. Mad.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. Should we not have built the M1? Or any motorways? Schools, hospitals, police?
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
Amazing how many people who complained about Liz Truss's 'unfunded tax cuts' are absolutely fine with Starmer shaking the empty money tree and spunking 28 billion at green.
Tax cuts especially for the rich just results in money being left unused in a bank account. Government spending gets spent in the economy probably 5-10 times over before it ends up sat unspent in a bank account.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
Utter tripe. Tax cuts mean businesses can invest and employ more people, people can spend more in the economy, extend their homes, upgrade their cars. That economic activity has a beneficial impact.
Government making enormous 'investments' in green has got disaster written all over it, and though I still wouldn't vote for SKS, I am a mite reassured to know that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country in the first term.
Show me any time in the last 12 years where Businesses actually invested and I might believe you.
But the reality is most firms didn't invest and used cheap labour rather than productivity improvements - and I suspect anyone looking at things would show you that the only productivity improvements have been in areas where automation became inevitable because labour costs made anything else impossible see as an example the removal of manned tills in Supermarkets and the machines used for ordering food in most fast food places.
Also I don't remember any of Truss's tax cuts being aimed at business - it was all tax cuts for people earning over £100,000
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
Labour will win the 2024 general election, don't worry. Tories are toast (and deservedly so)
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
I expect that the Starmer government will be pretty shite, but in FPTP there will need to be a rival government in waiting to win GE 2029.
I know that politics can be volatile, no one expected such a massive turnaround from Labour since 2019, but there seems to be a dearth of Tories willing to do a similar turnaround to centrism. No one will want them back when they double down on the policies that they lost on.
Starmer gets 2 terms IMO, possibly more.
Though Labour's internal turnaround was hiding in plain sight, really. There was a pretty plausible government in exile on the Labour benches, and nowhere further left to go once Corbyn had failed. The external bit, the bit bringing them to Downing Street, was just the luck that BoJo, Truss and Sunak all failed miserably, but Labour had to be ready to take advantage. (Just imagine a Sunak-Corbyn election...)
The Conservative equivalents are largely out of Parliament now, mostly making podcasts. And boy, there's plenty of space for them to go even more batso once in opposition.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
It was proven in a court of law. In the first trial (Carroll 2, for reasons), the evidence was put to a jury and the jury decided that Trump had sexually assaulted her.
The Conservative peer Michelle Mone assured the government that she was not entitled to “any financial benefit whatsoever” from a PPE company, five months before £29m of its profits were transferred into a trust for her benefit.
When talking specifically about Brianna, didn't Sunak refer to her as a girl/woman? If so, he was right to do so but how does it sit with what he said previously?
I will happily use whatever pronouns and name someone wants, out of politeness. But pretending, in my head, that they are actually a woman? Can't make the leap.
Not sure there's a contradiction there, whether I'm right or wrong about the second half.
Pronouns...it's not polite...it's clarification dumbwit. If someone called Jerry, or Toni, emails me how the hell do I know if they are a man or a woman? Similarly, how do I know with many foreign names their gender? Am I a fountain of knowledge of all global gender names?
I fucking hate this made up culture war bollocks that the right perpetuate because they have run out of any genuine ideas to improve the world. But, heh..let's just stoke up some hatred instead....
If you think it all comes from the right you are deluded. The reality is that left wing activists want a very different society. They have a simplistic world view in which various minority groups are to all intents and purposes the new proletariat. However this doesn't include Jews because they are deemed privileged. Fine. That is what they believe. Saying that people are fighting a 'culture war' because they happen to disagree with this stuff is childish.
The threat to free speech in universities comes largely from the left. It is gender critical feminists not trans activists being questioned by the police. It is 'progressive' activists who supported Hamas' vitriolic attacks on 7 October Worst of all it is law abiding Jews living in fear not radicals Islamists*
JK Rowling Hadley Freeman Julie Bindel Suzanne Moore Bari Weiss
How many more victims of the left's culture war do you need?
*You may deny that islamists are on the left to which I would simply ask - who is marching alongside them every week?
It's also about time we had another repeat PM. It would be a reassertion of parliamentary politics.
Theresa May excepted, recent PMs seem to quit the HoC at the earliest possible opportunity, which rather buggers up their chances of a comeback.
Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher.
But Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Home all stayed on for years after quitting. Indeed, Home served as Foreign Secretary under Heath before returning to the Lords in 1974.
Equally, I suppose you could argue none of them were now 'recent...'
(I was shocked today when one of my tutees said it was amazing how the BBC had put lots of 'old' episodes of Dr Who on iPlayer and it was amazing to see this guy Matt Smith in them...)
Matt Smith's last appearance as the Doctor was in 2013. Eleven years ago. Peter Capaldi's last was in 2017. Seven years ago.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
I don’t entirely agree. Yes to the fact if you can get elected on a blank cheque not with lots of promises on, it’s a stronger position. But this seems more about managing the pace of releasing money once in power, managing expectations.
How can a figure remain at £28B for two years without moving? The required Pension for a single person to live moderately has moved to £31,300 for 2023 to 2024 - up from £23,300 a year earlier. How can that arbitrary £28B costs remain the same on Tory attack slogans for two years, and same month after month?
So it’s a fake figure, and perfectly sensible for Labour to dampen expectations on how quickly it can be afforded and delivered once in power.
This announcement actually fits in with everything Labour has been saying and doing since start of the year, it isn’t about trying to win an election anymore, they think that’s in the bag, everything they Labour been announcing and saying, including this change, is about managing expectations on spending once they are in power. Labour are not talking to voters this year, they are taking the win for granted - they are making changes and statements for the ears business small and big, the city, foreign investors, foreign governments, the IMF etc.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
You've missed out the single biggest bit of evidence - I hope not deliberately - which was his taped deposition.
He says she's not his type - well she's blonde and attractive so we can deduce that that he's lying there. But what does that tell us except that he's angry he's being accused of raping someone?
This is evidence of an alleged rape? Let's be serious.
Also: Carroll's lawyer asked Trump: “So, sir, I just want to confirm: It’s your testimony that E. Jean Carroll said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you?”
Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place.”
Skewered by his own evidence.
That reads to me that he's describing Carroll's account as taking place, not admitting to a rape taking place. Why would anyone admit an event they participated in by saying 'based on her account with **** I believe that's what took place?' That's evidence of no more than Trump being a prick, which isn't news, and doesn't mean he defamed someone by denying that he raped them.
So do Labour really think the Tories won’t now attack them for u-turning .
And one of the criticisms of Starmer is he doesn’t seem to stand for much . So now he stands for even less .
What other policies will Labour drop because the Tories criticized them . I find the Labour strategy bizarre . The public after 14 years are willing to turn a page and are more receptive to Labour and they will now be framed as you can’t trust them not to ditch things in their manifesto .
The biggest danger to a Labour win seems to be Labour itself .
Labour will win the 2024 general election, don't worry. Tories are toast (and deservedly so)
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
I expect that the Starmer government will be pretty shite, but in FPTP there will need to be a rival government in waiting to win GE 2029.
I know that politics can be volatile, no one expected such a massive turnaround from Labour since 2019, but there seems to be a dearth of Tories willing to do a similar turnaround to centrism. No one will want them back when they double down on the policies that they lost on.
Starmer gets 2 terms IMO, possibly more.
Though Labour's internal turnaround was hiding in plain sight, really. There was a pretty plausible government in exile on the Labour benches, and nowhere further left to go once Corbyn had failed. The external bit, the bit bringing them to Downing Street, was just the luck that BoJo, Truss and Sunak all failed miserably, but Labour had to be ready to take advantage. (Just imagine a Sunak-Corbyn election...)
The Conservative equivalents are largely out of Parliament now, mostly making podcasts. And boy, there's plenty of space for them to go even more batso once in opposition.
Yes, even if we we have Sunak as Miliband, they have to get through their Corbyn next.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Does rcs1000 have a history of saying he sexually assaults women (“grab ‘em by the…”)? Are there multiple women with similar stories about rcs1000? Does the woman concerned have witnesses saying she spoke about the event at the time? I don’t believe so. rcs1000 is, thus, in a very different position to Trump.
The Conservative peer Michelle Mone assured the government that she was not entitled to “any financial benefit whatsoever” from a PPE company, five months before £29m of its profits were transferred into a trust for her benefit.
Reasonably confidential information in a criminal case, knowingly leaked by Sunak’s government, to the Guardian.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Was it Yes Minister that said: the Ship of state is the only ship which leaks at the top 😇.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
What message?
Vote for a party unable to stop the boats, incapable of sending immigrants to Rwanda and unable to grasp the fact that while people may dislike coloured / trans / gay people on mass they have a nasty habit of liking / sympathising with any they actually get to know be it in person or because a tragedy (like Brianna Ghey) has made their story familiar..
I’m rereading Dominic Sandbrook’s history of the early 80s and he makes the point that whatever Mrs Thatcher did or said about unemployment it never landed because fundamentally she couldn’t empathise with being poor, unlucky or depressed and people could sense that. I think that Sunak has the same problem. It is transparently obvious to everyone that he can’t understand what it’s like to be struggling so it doesn’t matter if he says the right things.
Consistently low unemployment (and high employment) is the 2010-2024 good news story, whether it’s the government’s doing or not. But their comms are so shit they barely mention it.
Yes agreed and that probably half proves the point. There used to be senior politicians in both parties who had first hand experience of unemployment (either themselves or their families) and could speak convincingly about why it mattered. The public can sense when something is a genuine concern for a politician which is why Sunak will get no credit whatever happens to the cost of living or to the unemployment rate.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Does rcs1000 have a history of saying he sexually assaults women (“grab ‘em by the…”)? Are there multiple women with similar stories about rcs1000? Does the woman concerned have witnesses saying she spoke about the event at the time? I don’t believe so. rcs1000 is, thus, in a very different position to Trump.
So misogynist arseholes just deserve everything they get? OK.
I like the top he's wearing. What's with the red bangle?
He's a Hindu. Don't know owt about that. However. I wear exactly the same as a Highest Yoga Tantra practitioner (Buddhism). On the left wrist. It isn't a bangle. It's string.
And, by the way, he's guy who has done other videos about how many of the other Trump trials are largely baseless, so I don't think he's reflexively anti-Trump
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Does rcs1000 have a history of saying he sexually assaults women (“grab ‘em by the…”)? Are there multiple women with similar stories about rcs1000? Does the woman concerned have witnesses saying she spoke about the event at the time? I don’t believe so. rcs1000 is, thus, in a very different position to Trump.
So misogynist arseholes just deserve everything they get? OK.
Being a misogynist arsehole might explain the first of 3 things I mentioned, but not the other two.
Comments
True, I am getting old but I have not yet descended to classing 45 years ago as 'recent'.
(Not being an MP doesn’t preclude interference, as Thatcher proved. Her comments on Tory policy were feared by opposition leaders almost until her death)
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
A Houthi-run court in Yemen has sentenced 13 people to public execution on homosexuality charges
https://x.com/theinsiderpaper/status/1754920390487331068
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
@VictoriaAtkins
·
14h
Everyone who needs a dentist should be able to get one.
Just LOL.
The actual council is a Gloucestershire one, a recent Lib Dem and labour control despite Conservative larger party who were in power there 2015 to 23 , so not really like Uxbridge? but many services the people living there use is in Bristol that is a green council - my friend in Bristol, a green, thought kingswood was in Bristol, I had to explain the stats to her, yet she still has a point that it’s so close to the green power base they can get a power surge in this constituency by getting Lib Dem and Con and labour voters, depriving labour of a win. You might be able to add the green and Lab together after Labour lose Kingswood and Labour could have won but for the green vote.
On the point about dentists my father is running out of teeth and frankly it is starting to look a bit daft. I keep mentioning dentures etc to him but he doesn't seem interested. Trouble is he's always hated anything cosmetic.
My (private) dentist has obvious missing and misaligned teeth, but I'm sure they're in very healthy shape.
Old people are allowed to look daft, anyway.
Interesting fact: No10 authorised the Kemi Badenoch tweets before they went out.
@IamHappyToast
The week’s not over yet
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
But there are so many red flags about what SKS' Labour government will be like that I would expect a one term government and anything more will be bonus...
It’s not a real uturn on green policy intention anyway, the £28B is arbitrary figure, as Rishi himself pointed out in PMQs today, his treasury officials estimated just a part of the plan is £12B.
Juries threw them out.
You are equating a case where a jury heard all the evidence and found someone liable, with lots of trials where people were found not liable.
Edit to add: actually, they didn't even get as far as court
US headed towards $3 trillion of investment in next gen green technology.
We will be totally out of the game.
Yet again.
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
Given the choice between tax cuts and Government spending money I would have the government spending money every single time...
The UK needs investment not spineless caving in to a Tory party who shouldn’t have the gall to lecture anyone about spending.
Labour are doing their best to blow their poll lead .
https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1755339455303418311
I know that politics can be volatile, no one expected such a massive turnaround from Labour since 2019, but there seems to be a dearth of Tories willing to do a similar turnaround to centrism. No one will want them back when they double down on the policies that they lost on.
Starmer gets 2 terms IMO, possibly more.
He says she's not his type - well she's blonde and attractive so we can deduce that that he's lying there. But what does that tell us except that he's angry he's being accused of raping someone?
This is evidence of an alleged rape? Let's be serious.
Two camps in Labour.
One for ditching it and the other for keeping it and saying what they believe in and are hoping to actually do.
I've lost track who is what camp. Morgan McSweeney, Sue Grey, Deborah pollster person, Pat McFadden, Reeves etc.
Reeves and her minions in the shadow Treasury team need to be told they’re in the Labour not Tory party .
Basically, manifestoes are more a displacement activity for parties expecting to lose than a plan for parties expecting to win. See the Massive Green Plan- launched in 2021 when Labour can't have expected to implement it, edged back on in 2024 when they expect to have to deliver. The amount of green investment that happens between 2025 and 2028 is almost independent of what Labour are saying right now.
This isn't a good thing (there are a bunch of cobwebs where a check, balance or three ought to be) but it is how the system works. See also the Rwanda plan- now totemic for the government, not a hint of it in the 2019 manifesto.
Government making enormous 'investments' in green has got disaster written all over it, and though I still wouldn't vote for SKS, I am a mite reassured to know that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country in the first term.
https://x.com/timmyvoe240886/status/1755352762013946121?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place.”
Skewered by his own evidence.
The Tories have helpfully done it for him already.
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
That depends heavily on whether the Tories go all HY in opposition.
Meanwhile, Starmer has clearly heard the one about the tiger and the man who just needs to run faster than the other guy.
But the reality is most firms didn't invest and used cheap labour rather than productivity improvements - and I suspect anyone looking at things would show you that the only productivity improvements have been in areas where automation became inevitable because labour costs made anything else impossible see as an example the removal of manned tills in Supermarkets and the machines used for ordering food in most fast food places.
Also I don't remember any of Truss's tax cuts being aimed at business - it was all tax cuts for people earning over £100,000
The Conservative equivalents are largely out of Parliament now, mostly making podcasts. And boy, there's plenty of space for them to go even more batso once in opposition.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1755343180218691759?t=Vjvrg0J2YKSsOIhAxVQSFw&s=19
Peter Capaldi's last was in 2017. Seven years ago.
Time is passing us by...
How can a figure remain at £28B for two years without moving? The required Pension for a single person to live moderately has moved to £31,300 for 2023 to 2024 - up from £23,300 a year earlier. How can that arbitrary £28B costs remain the same on Tory attack slogans for two years, and same month after month?
https://news.sky.com/story/moderate-standard-of-living-in-retirement-costs-8-000-more-a-year-industry-body-says-13065628
So it’s a fake figure, and perfectly sensible for Labour to dampen expectations on how quickly it can be afforded and delivered once in power.
This announcement actually fits in with everything Labour has been saying and doing since start of the year, it isn’t about trying to win an election anymore, they think that’s in the bag, everything they Labour been announcing and saying, including this change, is about managing expectations on spending once they are in power. Labour are not talking to voters this year, they are taking the win for granted - they are making changes and statements for the ears business small and big, the city, foreign investors, foreign governments, the IMF etc.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Was it Yes Minister that said: the Ship of state is the only ship which leaks at the top 😇.
Vote for a party unable to stop the boats, incapable of sending immigrants to Rwanda and unable to grasp the fact that while people may dislike coloured / trans / gay people on mass they have a nasty habit of liking / sympathising with any they actually get to know be it in person or because a tragedy (like Brianna Ghey) has made their story familiar..
Here's an analysis on the Trump Carrol case by a US lawyer: it's well worth a watch
https://youtu.be/zGxPup9w1x8?si=OKjVoMLLZNZdff7n
However. I wear exactly the same as a Highest Yoga Tantra practitioner (Buddhism). On the left wrist.
It isn't a bangle. It's string.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?