Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Isn’t fence-sitting potentially a banning offence?
Both @DavidL and I were threatened with a ban a while ago for being too reasonable!
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
The royals want it both ways. Sometimes it's give us money and tongue our mud sockets as is our divine right. Other times it's please respect our privacy. Fuck them.
Most of us want it both ways.
Yeah. @Dura_Ace wants his comfortable existence in the civilised UK, whilst condemning Ukrainians to live in uncivilised, fascist Russia...
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
Why exactly are they taking so long to put it back up, btw, does anyone know? Presumably they have backups?
AIUI they got completely Donald Ducked by a cyberattack, and are rescontructing their whole IT system, hardware and software, from scratch. Their reliable backups might be well out of date, and existing hardware - down to the desktops of the admin staff - deemed to be untrustworthy.
I suspect that they’re taking the ‘opportunity’ presented to bring in new management software, whether by necessity or choice, so it’s taking months to get non-critical services up and running because they can’t make a baby in one month with nine women.
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
Why exactly are they taking so long to put it back up, btw, does anyone know? Presumably they have backups?
AIUI they got completely Donald Ducked by a cyberattack, and are rescontructing their whole IT system, hardware and software, from scratch. Their reliable backups might be well out of date, and existing hardware - down to the desktops of the admin staff - deemed to be untrustworthy.
I suspect that they’re taking the ‘opportunity’ presented to bring in new management software, whether by necessity or choice, so it’s taking months to get non-critical services up and running because they can’t make a baby in one month with nine women.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
When I last opened a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unusual, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
What is grotesque, is a family that is literally there by divine right opening a house for £100 to make a profit from during a cost of living crisis. They don't need the money. It is just pure greed.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
Going there is voluntary, not compulsory and will help pay for Balmoral's upkeep
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
The royals want it both ways. Sometimes it's give us money and tongue our mud sockets as is our divine right. Other times it's please respect our privacy. Fuck them.
Could be time for you to return your £10, young fella me lad. Perhaps donate it to some poor soul queuing up to visit Balmoral who will duly return it to source.
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
They need to be a damn sight more careful in their ops and I will be interested to see the outcome of the investigation. Plus you might call them unrealistic but AFAIAA their objectives are the defeat of Hamas and the release of the hostages. Hardly "ridiculous".
When I last opened a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unusual, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
What is grotesque, is a family that is literally there by divine right opening a house for £100 to make a profit from during a cost of living crisis. They don't need the money. It is just pure greed.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
Going there is voluntary, not compulsory and will help pay for Balmoral's upkeep
I'd be more triggered if British people were living in tents on Halfords doorway or children were contracting Victorian diseases, but as they're not I guess that's OK.
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
I don’t even think it’s that - it’s the typical story of pricing things to match demand - and I suspect even at £100 more people will want to visit than tickets are available
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Yes it does, farming families couldn't afford to transfer the land they own with a substantial inheritance bill too. Fertile farmland for food production would end up in the hands of developers or large companies.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
It's Balimmoral if you ask me.
You've been able to rent properties at Balmoral to stay in for a self catering holiday for quite some time, much like other Scottish estates. Including the shooting lodge by Loch Muick and one or two of the cottages near to the main hoose.
So paying to visit isn't exactly a new thing.
[Although of course you can wander around 99.9% of the estate or stay in the bothy for nowt]
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
Wow. Well done you.
And I suppose you come to PB to restore your faith in the essential goodness of mankind.
Let’s just hope Leon isn’t on, at the apposite time.
When I last opened a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unusual, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
What is grotesque, is a family that is literally there by divine right opening a house for £100 to make a profit from during a cost of living crisis. They don't need the money. It is just pure greed.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
Going there is voluntary, not compulsory and will help pay for Balmoral's upkeep
I'd be more triggered if British people were living in tents on Halfords doorway or children were contracting Victorian diseases, but as they're not I guess that's OK.
Nah, they're definitely nice modern diseases, none of this Victorian values opprobrium.
Seriously, though, it's a concern to keep an eye on.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Chimes with a piece in the Guardian the other day about evidence of Israeli sniper killings of Palestinian children. A sense of a rogue force acting with impunity. Sickening.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
Probably harsh on the South Africans.
Has any government managed to throw away international goodwill quite so rapidly?
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Yes it does, farming families couldn't afford to transfer the land they own with a substantial inheritance bill too. Fertile farmland for food production would end up in the hands of developers or large companies.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
But these families don't *own* their farms or have a chance of buying them, because the big landowners cling to them. And we were talking about big landonwers, not the individual farming families, till you started conflating them.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
The UK can't turn off the arms tap Israel with upsetting the US so the government won't.
Anyhow, as per today’s R4, the truth is that we import more tech and weaponry from Israel than we export. If we wish to punish them, we need to stop buying their stuff.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
This. The threat to women is men. And whilst I have every sympathy towards the victims of male violence having a safe female space, the supposed "threat" from trans women isn't really there.
If a man wants to assault a woman - especially when they are doing so out of some twisted version of entitlement - they don't need to pretend to be trans. This is why I don't understand that entire screeching debate. Unless it is men refusing to admit that our gender has a predatory streak to it...
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
This. The threat to women is men. And whilst I have every sympathy towards the victims of male violence having a safe female space, the supposed "threat" from trans women isn't really there.
If a man wants to assault a woman - especially when they are doing so out of some twisted version of entitlement - they don't need to pretend to be trans. This is why I don't understand that entire screeching debate. Unless it is men refusing to admit that our gender has a predatory streak to it...
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Chimes with a piece in the Guardian the other day about evidence of Israeli sniper killings of Palestinian children. A sense of a rogue force acting with impunity. Sickening.
The idea of the Israeli army as a undisciplined mob takes some getting used to!
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Is it me or is the royal mail plan to keep first class delivery daily while moving second class to every other day utterly insane - if a postman still needs to walk the route every day to delivery first class post you aren’t going to gain anything
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
But no one would be convicted of theft - or anything else - simply on the word of the victim- there would need to be additional evidence, maybe CCTV or forensics. Sex cases - especially historic ones - often come down to "he said, she said" and it's almost impossible to conclude that such a case is proved beyond reasonable doubt without corroborating evidence.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
Yes and no.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
The Israeli government needs to stop these attacks but it is far easier to be a Christian or a homosexual or an atheist in Israel than it is most of the rest of the Middle East. No minority is persecuted or forced to use second class facilities
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Er, a colleague is male and called Gunpreet. This has confused me ... a quick check confirms it's like Leslie, applicable to all.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
My wife is an HR Manager, she sees it for the cobblers it is too, but that is exactly why they do it in her view. Same as any other training. Manual Handling, Ethics, compliance etc etc....
Yes, I may be breaking with my fellow members of the tofu eating wokerati here but I think that corporate unconscious bias training is mostly an arse covering, box ticking, exercise. It means that if an employee sues for racial discrimination the company has grounds for claiming it is not responsible. This doesn't mean that unconscious bias is not a thing, let alone conscious bias. Simply that I'm not convinced this sort of training really achieves anything, other than providing a living to the people delivering it and winding some people up unnecessarily. I think there are more effective means of achieving these goals. CR would no doubt disagree with me but I think that things like tearing down statues are much more effective as they spur a conversation around the historical drivers of discrimination that can also lead to introspection about our own attitudes and assumptions. The fact is we live in a society absolutely steeped in racism and other forms of discrimination, and while things are improving we have all been formed by this society and this history to some degree. One final thought - there are interesting tests for unconscious bias out there that I would recommend taking, just in order to know oneself better. I was relieved to find when I did it that I didn't actually harbour any subconscious bias, at least not according to the test. So that was nice.
It is my belief that Chief Superintendent Savage OBE, of the Met, has passed all his multi choice online exams on bias. With flying colours.
He now has a large cabinet in his office, full of abstract chunks of Perspex celebrating his success.
The same office where he runs Operation Darkie. The wholesale arrest of Black people for ordering their coffee “Black”.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Yes it does, farming families couldn't afford to transfer the land they own with a substantial inheritance bill too. Fertile farmland for food production would end up in the hands of developers or large companies.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
But these families don't *own* their farms or have a chance of buying them, because the big landowners cling to them. And we were talking about big landonwers, not the individual farming families, till you started conflating them.
Most landowners are farmers too and individual farming families couldn't afford a big inheritance bill either even if they owned their farms rather than being tenant farmers
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Chimes with a piece in the Guardian the other day about evidence of Israeli sniper killings of Palestinian children. A sense of a rogue force acting with impunity. Sickening.
Can you be 'rogue' if the instigators aren't punished? Seems the IDF is a military acting within an accepted framework.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
Probably harsh on the South Africans.
Has any government managed to throw away international goodwill quite so rapidly?
The US after 9/11? Both that and the October 7 attacks were outrageous, but in both cases the victim country went far beyond the proper pursuit of justice and well into the realm of unjustifiable aggression. The US is still paying the price for its fall from the moral high ground in, for example, lukewarm support in neutral countries for its stance against Russia re Ukraine. Israel will likely end up paying a similar price when it is looking for favours in the future.
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Yes it does, farming families couldn't afford to transfer the land they own with a substantial inheritance bill too. Fertile farmland for food production would end up in the hands of developers or large companies.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
But these families don't *own* their farms or have a chance of buying them, because the big landowners cling to them. And we were talking about big landonwers, not the individual farming families, till you started conflating them.
Most landowners are farmers too and individual farming families couldn't afford a big inheritance bill either even if they owned their farms rather than being tenant farmers
So it's not an argument relevant to big landowners, then. Which is the point.
How do you think other people feel about having to pay IHT when others don't? You're always complaining about it.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
I focus my ire specifically on Bibi. There is not an insult or profanity too extreme to describe that ****.
Wasn't Netanyahu under the knife while the aid workers were being killed? Might an adventurous deputy have taken advantage of his absence? (What the Middle East needs is more conspiracy theories.)
ETA written before reading the posts about rogue commanders!
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Er, a colleague is male and called Gunpreet. This has confused me ... a quick check confirms it's like Leslie, applicable to all.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Chimes with a piece in the Guardian the other day about evidence of Israeli sniper killings of Palestinian children. A sense of a rogue force acting with impunity. Sickening.
The idea of the Israeli army as a undisciplined mob takes some getting used to!
Reportedly the attack - on three separate cars, over 2.5km - was aimed at a single individual. Who wasn't there.
Haaretz reports “The convoy of the "Central World Kitchen" organization was attacked due to the suspicion that an armed Hamas operative had joined the foreign volunteers, but he remained in the warehouse from where the journey began.” https://twitter.com/rulesbasedworld/status/1775122414554234932
And recall that this is the aid charity favoured by Israel for cooperation.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
Probably harsh on the South Africans.
Has any government managed to throw away international goodwill quite so rapidly?
The US after 9/11? Both that and the October 7 attacks were outrageous, but in both cases the victim country went far beyond the proper pursuit of justice and well into the realm of unjustifiable aggression. The US is still paying the price for its fall from the moral high ground in, for example, lukewarm support in neutral countries for its stance against Russia re Ukraine. Israel will likely end up paying a similar price when it is looking for favours in the future.
I think you're right but/and it's interesting/depressing/realistic to note that charity really does begin at home. No one really cared (not really) before their own nationals became involved.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
So just to be on the safe side you are saying employ a tv crew to film your every move at all times just in case.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
This. The threat to women is men. And whilst I have every sympathy towards the victims of male violence having a safe female space, the supposed "threat" from trans women isn't really there.
If a man wants to assault a woman - especially when they are doing so out of some twisted version of entitlement - they don't need to pretend to be trans. This is why I don't understand that entire screeching debate. Unless it is men refusing to admit that our gender has a predatory streak to it...
Trans women are male...
...and yet in certain circumstances are legally female. And there, in one sentence, is the crux of the issue.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
So just to be on the safe side you are saying employ a tv crew to film your every move at all times just in case.
No was playing in the wsop and they choose random tables to film in the first couple of days, just happened to be the table I was on
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
There was a columnist for the Sunday Mercury back in the day called Vivian Bird. He wrote that people often assumed he was female, until the West Indies cricket team visited. Then they accepted he was male, but assumed he was black.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
The Israeli government needs to stop these attacks but it is far easier to be a Christian or a homosexual or an atheist in Israel than it is most of the rest of the Middle East. No minority is persecuted or forced to use second class facilities
Do you just want to read that back to yourself before looking at current footage of Al Shifa hospital?
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
If King Charles inherited Balmoral how much inheritance tax did he pay or is he one of those parasites who thinks taxes are for little people?
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
Farmland in use is exempt from IHT [edit] or heavily discounted (I forget the details), so too is the farm steading. I inherited a little field from my own forebears some years ago, which the local farmer rents; I was surprised to find it didn't count for IHT.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
And ensures we maintain working farms in families, of increasing importance given the Ukraine war etc and the fact we cannot rely on having enough imported food.
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
No; it ensures we *don't* maintain working farms in the families of those who work them.
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Yes it does, farming families couldn't afford to transfer the land they own with a substantial inheritance bill too. Fertile farmland for food production would end up in the hands of developers or large companies.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
But these families don't *own* their farms or have a chance of buying them, because the big landowners cling to them. And we were talking about big landonwers, not the individual farming families, till you started conflating them.
Most landowners are farmers too and individual farming families couldn't afford a big inheritance bill either even if they owned their farms rather than being tenant farmers
So it's not an argument relevant to big landowners, then. Which is the point.
How do you think other people feel about having to pay IHT when others don't? You're always complaining about it.
It is an argument relevant to farmers, large or small.
Currently most people don't pay IHT unless their parents have an estate over £1 million and most people also need a guaranteed supply of food, which comes from ensuring we have enough British farmers producing food
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
This. The threat to women is men. And whilst I have every sympathy towards the victims of male violence having a safe female space, the supposed "threat" from trans women isn't really there.
If a man wants to assault a woman - especially when they are doing so out of some twisted version of entitlement - they don't need to pretend to be trans. This is why I don't understand that entire screeching debate. Unless it is men refusing to admit that our gender has a predatory streak to it...
Trans women are male...
...and yet in certain circumstances are legally female. And there, in one sentence, is the crux of the issue.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
There was a columnist for the Sunday Mercury back in the day called Vivian Bird. He wrote that people often assumed he was female, until the West Indies cricket team visited. Then they accepted he was male, but assumed he was black.
I went to school with his grandson. I think he did walking travelogs around the West Midlands. I may be wrong but wasn't it called Bird's view or Bird's eye view?
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Er, a colleague is male and called Gunpreet. This has confused me ... a quick check confirms it's like Leslie, applicable to all.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
This. The threat to women is men. And whilst I have every sympathy towards the victims of male violence having a safe female space, the supposed "threat" from trans women isn't really there.
If a man wants to assault a woman - especially when they are doing so out of some twisted version of entitlement - they don't need to pretend to be trans. This is why I don't understand that entire screeching debate. Unless it is men refusing to admit that our gender has a predatory streak to it...
Trans women are male...
...and yet in certain circumstances are legally female. And there, in one sentence, is the crux of the issue.
It's the old de jure/ de facto split:
De facto Men, De Jure women.
These two people were born male These two people still have penises One has a GRC. The other does not.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Evelyn Waugh's first wife was named Evelyn. Apparently their friends referred to them as She-Evelyn and He-Evelyn.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
I've a distant relative (female, as she writes about herself) called Leslie. I've always assumed it was an Americanism.
I have friends called Evelyn and Evelyn one male one female but the male's name is pronounced Evelyn whereas the female's name is pronounced Evelyn so there is no confusion.
Jordan was a boy's name. Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Er, a colleague is male and called Gunpreet. This has confused me ... a quick check confirms it's like Leslie, applicable to all.
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
Probably harsh on the South Africans.
Has any government managed to throw away international goodwill quite so rapidly?
Genuinely baffling how they could get it so wrong. I was firmly on the Israel side until a month or so ago.
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
OK, I'll bite at that. What planes do they have that come from us? Do they have Hawks? We've haven't sold them tanks for several decades (we reneged on a deal to sell them Chieftains/Centurions in the 70/80s). They are self-reliant for tanks and rifles. It's possible we sell them ammunition from Royal Ordinance, but there's hardly a world-wide shortage of that.
I'm going out of my depth here, but I'm honestly stuck as to what specific arms we could sell them, let alone any we do.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Chimes with a piece in the Guardian the other day about evidence of Israeli sniper killings of Palestinian children. A sense of a rogue force acting with impunity. Sickening.
The idea of the Israeli army as a undisciplined mob takes some getting used to!
Reportedly the attack - on three separate cars, over 2.5km - was aimed at a single individual. Who wasn't there.
Haaretz reports “The convoy of the "Central World Kitchen" organization was attacked due to the suspicion that an armed Hamas operative had joined the foreign volunteers, but he remained in the warehouse from where the journey began.” https://twitter.com/rulesbasedworld/status/1775122414554234932
And recall that this is the aid charity favoured by Israel for cooperation.
This has been the behaviour of the IDF from the start . Regardless of how many innocent people are killed they deem it worthy even to just get one militant .
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Chimes with a piece in the Guardian the other day about evidence of Israeli sniper killings of Palestinian children. A sense of a rogue force acting with impunity. Sickening.
The idea of the Israeli army as a undisciplined mob takes some getting used to!
Reportedly the attack - on three separate cars, over 2.5km - was aimed at a single individual. Who wasn't there.
Haaretz reports “The convoy of the "Central World Kitchen" organization was attacked due to the suspicion that an armed Hamas operative had joined the foreign volunteers, but he remained in the warehouse from where the journey began.” https://twitter.com/rulesbasedworld/status/1775122414554234932
And recall that this is the aid charity favoured by Israel for cooperation.
This has been the behaviour of the IDF from the start . Regardless of how many innocent people are killed they deem it worthy even to just get one militant .
Our resident war mongers will say is is absolutely worth it.
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
I focus my ire specifically on Bibi. There is not an insult or profanity too extreme to describe that ****.
Wasn't Netanyahu under the knife while the aid workers were being killed? Might an adventurous deputy have taken advantage of his absence? (What the Middle East needs is more conspiracy theories.)
ETA written before reading the posts about rogue commanders!
I doubt Netanyahu gave the direct order to blow away the aid workers, however the command and control of the IDF remains in his gift.
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
I focus my ire specifically on Bibi. There is not an insult or profanity too extreme to describe that ****.
Wasn't Netanyahu under the knife while the aid workers were being killed? Might an adventurous deputy have taken advantage of his absence? (What the Middle East needs is more conspiracy theories.)
ETA written before reading the posts about rogue commanders!
I doubt Netanyahu gave the direct order to blow away the aid workers, however the command and control of the IDF remains in his gift.
Netanyahu was under general anaesthesia for abdominal surgery. It is possible a rogue commander or politician took advantage of ambiguity in the chain of command.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
Some years back, I got talking to junior(ish) lawyer at a prestigious law firm. He was drinking to try and ease his conscience. Apparently, in high end divorce cases (a speciality of the firm), often the most extreme allegations were made.
He had the job (among other things) of explaining to clients, in a "general information and in no way specific to your case" way, that if a hypothetical person was formally accused of such, they would be ruined professionally and in jail. So no money.
Strangely, after this explanation, many such allegations were dropped. He was trying to convince himself they were all lies.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
Because often rape allegations when people know each other can be motivated by other things than truth. Theft allegations are usually between strangers.
Like I say, it's depressing.
Confession I got accused of rape by a girl I knew....never had slept with her though she had intimated I could if I wanted to....sadly for her when she claimed I had raped her I was in the US having dinner with a lot of witnesses. No idea why she decided to accuse me to this day, naturally I stopped talking to her. However I had a bad few months when the police arrested me
Friend of mine was accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. By the mother of his estranged wife. Arrested obviously, relatively short investigation, then released. MIL then told in no uncertain terms by the police to not bring anymore baseless accusations to them unless she wanted to be arrested instead.
By the way not saying most accusations are baseless, merely saying it does happen. I was lucky and could prove the allegation false as I was not withing 2000 miles of her and even had recorded evidence from a tv crew to prove when I was raping her as alleged I was on another continent.....still turned my life upside down for several months
If I hadn't been abroad and able to prove it though would have been a she said I said case
No it wouldn't. The classic "he said, she said" case is one where it is established sex between the two parties occurred, she says she did not consent, he says she did.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
Yes and no.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
But also factor in the British voter’s fear of large majorities…
Tories on course for a worse result at general election than John Major's defeat in 1997, new Yougov MRP poll finds
Labour poised to take 403 seats, Tories reduced to 155. Starmer expected to get 154 majority
The result is *worse* for the Tories than the last MRP Yougov conducted in January
11 Cabinet ministers face losing their seats:
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies
Labour 403 Con 155 LD 49 SNP 19 Plaid 4 Greens 1
Lab 41% Con 24% Lib Dems 12% Greens 7% Reform 12% SNP 3% Others 1%
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
Yes and no.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
But also factor in the British voter’s fear of large majorities…
Tories on course for a worse result at general election than John Major's defeat in 1997, new Yougov MRP poll finds
Labour poised to take 403 seats, Tories reduced to 155. Starmer expected to get 154 majority
The result is *worse* for the Tories than the last MRP Yougov conducted in January
11 Cabinet ministers face losing their seats:
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies
Labour 403 Con 155 LD 49 SNP 19 Plaid 4 Greens 1
Lab 41% Con 24% Lib Dems 12% Greens 7% Reform 12% SNP 3% Others 1%
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies - your boys took a helllll of a beating!
IIRC, we - the UK - don't sell them arms. What the hell do we make that they would buy? All the kit they own they either build for themselves or get from the States, and it's better than ours. This is especially true of their F35s, which they can upgrade in ways we cannot. If we offered them L85A3's they would shit themselves laughing, Ajax they would turn down flat, they don't need A400M's, their Namers are better than our Warriors and even Challenger 3s would be rejected because circs dictate their tank doctrine is different. I think the only thing they'd like would be Wildcats, but as they are Royal Navy helicopters and this is a land war, they could probably do without. They're perfectly capable of death-from-above via artillery so they don't need Storm Shadows...
...but you get the point
Apparently, we do sell Israel a few bits and bobs. Oxfam says:
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
OK, I'll bite at that. What planes do they have that come from us? Do they have Hawks? We've haven't sold them tanks for several decades (we reneged on a deal to sell them Chieftains/Centurions in the 70/80s). They are self-reliant for tanks and rifles. It's possible we sell them ammunition from Royal Ordinance, but there's hardly a world-wide shortage of that.
I'm going out of my depth here, but I'm honestly stuck as to what specific arms we could sell them, let alone any we do.
BAe Systems has bought up various bits and bobs of US defence contractors over the years, so it likely makes a variety of things, in the US, that you think of as US weapons, but they're sold by a company listed on the LSE, so I guess they count as British arms sales.
Comments
#OneRuleForThemOneRuleForUs
Bloody cheek to charge us to visit his tax dodge.
But it is exceedingly heathy.
No carbs; no fat; no salt.
And very filling.
...but you get the point
I suspect that they’re taking the ‘opportunity’ presented to bring in new management software, whether by necessity or choice, so it’s taking months to get non-critical services up and running because they can’t make a baby in one month with nine women.
It's possible that the castle and estate come under that exemption tbf. But it is a very useful one for the landed proprietors, one has to admit.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-sorry-as-details-emerge-of-strike-that-picked-off-gaza-aid-cars-one-by-one/
...Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, the Haaretz daily spoke to unnamed military sources who revealed that the cause of the strike was undisciplined, rogue commanders, not a lack of coordination between the IDF and the WCK.
A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”
Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.
But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.
The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.
“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
Property passed sovereign to sovereign IHT free also avoids taxpayers having to pay for new furniture for the monarch etc too
And KCIII can't afford to go to Ikea? No wonder he charges £0.15K for a walk around and a cup of tea with some cakes unpacked from a M&S afternoon tea pack.
Balmoral is a grade A listed building, it needs rather more than just Ikea to maintain
So paying to visit isn't exactly a new thing.
[Although of course you can wander around 99.9% of the estate or stay in the bothy for nowt]
Seriously, though, it's a concern to keep an eye on.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/18/return-of-victorian-era-diseases-to-the-uk-scabies-measles-rickets-scurvy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68721310
"Speaking to GQ magazine, Schafer said being known simply as a "trans actress" was "ultimately demeaning to me and what I want to do"."
Has any government managed to throw away international goodwill quite so rapidly?
If a man wants to assault a woman - especially when they are doing so out of some twisted version of entitlement - they don't need to pretend to be trans. This is why I don't understand that entire screeching debate. Unless it is men refusing to admit that our gender has a predatory streak to it...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68721814
Now it's a girl's name.
Clive James was born Vivian James but the popularity of Vivien Leigh made it into a girl's name so he changed it to Clive. Vyvyan in "The Young Ones" used this trope as a joke.
Indian names aren't gendered in the same way as Anglo names are (so no end-with-a-vowel vs end-with-a-consonant) and aren't intuitively obvious. "Gunpreet" to Anglo ears sounds like a boy's name but it's a girl's.
Firstly, there's pretty much no doubt that the Tories will be removed, and heavily so. The Lib Dems need to protect their independence by offering an alternative to Labour too. If they get too close, they end up as being nothing more than an arms-length subsidiary, with all the problems that brings when Labour becomes unpopular. You can't rely on anti-Tory tactical votes for ever.
But also, since the last election, the Lib Dems are down a few points while Labour is up by miles. It's entirely plausible that Labour could take seats from third place, just on national swing. As long as the Lib Dems aren't that close, they won't be trying and 95%+ of the electorate won't know who finished where in the seat behind the Tories, or by how much.
He now has a large cabinet in his office, full of abstract chunks of Perspex celebrating his success.
The same office where he runs Operation Darkie. The wholesale arrest of Black people for ordering their coffee “Black”.
How do you think other people feel about having to pay IHT when others don't? You're always complaining about it.
ETA written before reading the posts about rogue commanders!
Am glum now. What are the rules for Indian names?
Who wasn't there.
Haaretz reports “The convoy of the "Central World Kitchen" organization was attacked due to the suspicion that an armed Hamas operative had joined the foreign volunteers, but he remained in the warehouse from where the journey began.”
https://twitter.com/rulesbasedworld/status/1775122414554234932
And recall that this is the aid charity favoured by Israel for cooperation.
He wrote that people often assumed he was female, until the West Indies cricket team visited.
Then they accepted he was male, but assumed he was black.
Currently most people don't pay IHT unless their parents have an estate over £1 million and most people also need a guaranteed supply of food, which comes from ensuring we have enough British farmers producing food
De facto Men, De Jure women.
These two people still have penises
One has a GRC. The other does not.
https://x.com/F1NN5TERUpdates
"Does the UK sell arms to Israel? Yes.
"UK arms sales to Israel since 2015 are to the value of at least £489m worth of military exports to Israel.
"That includes parts for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition."
I'm going out of my depth here, but I'm honestly stuck as to what specific arms we could sell them, let alone any we do.
He had the job (among other things) of explaining to clients, in a "general information and in no way specific to your case" way, that if a hypothetical person was formally accused of such, they would be ruined professionally and in jail. So no money.
Strangely, after this explanation, many such allegations were dropped. He was trying to convince himself they were all lies.
Labour poised to take 403 seats, Tories reduced to 155. Starmer expected to get 154 majority
The result is *worse* for the Tories than the last MRP Yougov conducted in January
11 Cabinet ministers face losing their seats:
Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Grant Shapps, Mark Harper, Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, Simon Hart, Victoria Prentis, Johnny Mercer, Michael Tomlinson, David TC Davies
Labour 403
Con 155
LD 49
SNP 19
Plaid 4
Greens 1
Lab 41%
Con 24%
Lib Dems 12%
Greens 7%
Reform 12%
SNP 3%
Others 1%
https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1775531207872122896
Apparently I wait longer behind immigrant families for healthcare: lovely dogwhistle.
I’m still waiting for the communists here in Wandsworth which has now been Labour for a number of years.
Labour: 28 seats
SNP: 19
Con: 5
Lib Dems: 5
https://x.com/yougov/status/1775533162065486042