I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
I think that quite a few of us on here may have Brommies. I have a 6-speeder and may be getting a second. I am waiting for an E-kit to arrive.
Compared to my other E-folder (which is an Axon Rides which is not far short in quality but has no suspension block and larger, lower pressure tyres) the Brompton has quite a harsh ride - it's like going from a French to a German car.
Tyres seem to make quite a differences. My Brommie came with Marathon Pluses, which in cycling groups are known as "Tractor Tyres".
I have a T Line 4 speed, and an electric Brompton (which I use when it's hot and I don't want to get all sweaty on the way to a meeting). I must admit, though, that I barely use the electric one anymore, simply because when I need to fold and carry my bike it's a hell of a lot easier when there's no motor and battery. I should probably sell it.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
An approach worth considering for Kamala would be "Who would Trump least want me to pick?". My guess is Mark Kelly - a standing affront to a blustering, narcissistic, blow-hard draft-dodger.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I agree with your proposal, and I think the government should implement something like it - not least because it results in an effective increase in the household savings rate, albeit via an insurance product rather than a traditional savings one.
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
To be fair, Elon made it clear what he thinks of Jews via his Twitter likes. And I find it curious that someone so obviously intelligent really believes that there's a secret cabal of Jews running the world.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I agree with your proposal, and I think the government should implement something like it - not least because it results in an effective increase in the household savings rate, albeit via an insurance product rather than a traditional savings one.
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
I am sure that insurance was part of the May “dementia tax” policy. However, I am pretty sure that the industry would have struggled to offer a policy at the sort of price May, and her advisers, thought was affordable.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
Of course they can be far right racists, but be sensible, I said 'almost certainly not far right racists' and clearly I meant in the current circumstances. Do you really think they are far right racists or do you think they are people reacting violently to the circumstances created by far right racists.
Well use of the word "racialist" usually means a post isn't serious. But to be a bit serious, Starmer appears to be saying any racist attack is far right, which might not be helpful.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
An approach worth considering for Kamala would be "Who would Trump least want me to pick?". My guess is Mark Kelly - a standing affront to a blustering, narcissistic, blow-hard draft-dodger.
Arizona, 11 EC votes and leaning Trump anyway, PA, 19 EC votes and on a knife edge.
Dodging the draft did not stop Bill Clinton and George W Bush winning, even against veterans like Bush Snr and Dole and Kerry
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
An approach worth considering for Kamala would be "Who would Trump least want me to pick?". My guess is Mark Kelly - a standing affront to a blustering, narcissistic, blow-hard draft-dodger.
It will also force cash-strapped Trump to go on the defensive in Arizona and spend a shed load of cash.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Where they usually find them. Run down towns and villages. Deprived parts of cities. Where they usually dump these people. Up here its the grimmer parts of Gateshead and Middlesbrough for example.
Wouldn't be surprised if they bought loads of properties in places like Spennymoor and dump them there.
With all the lack of community cohesion that brings.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
Buttigieg is the transport secretary who couldn't be bothered to visit the East Palestine rail disaster for three weeks.
And another of the liars who claimed Biden was capable of another term.
If you want to take on Vance then Andy Beshear would do a better job.
He's the best communicator the Democrats have, and he's also - almost uniquely - always on Fox. It's very curious, in fact, that he keeps getting invited back, given how often he eats the presenters' lunches.
I grant you, he has been (generously) a very average Transportation Secretary.
So all talk and little action plus a liar to boot.
Is Nick Clegg his role model ?
I don't see what he brings to the ticket that Harris doesn't.
A governor would provide more substance and some, much needed, out of DC experience and empathy.
I don't think Nick Clegg was a particularly good communicator: his first performance standing in for DC at Prime Minister's questions was a particular low point.
Buttigieg is, I think, a very effective and articulate communicator. And when the top of your ticket lacks... charisma... then adding it in the VP role is no bad thing.
Didn't really work for Kerry with John Edwards, also from a lean red state
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
If you've built hundreds of wheels and have studied Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" as if you were at a madrassa in the Pakistani FATA not hard at all.
If you've never built a bike wheel then it's not easy at all. They are quite hard to true radially because the rims are comparatively small and therefore stiff compared to a 700c.
In summary, as a spiritual journey to epignosis, I recommend the experience.
You'll need this and this. As it's a single speed you don't need to worry too much about rear wheel dish so you can get away without an alignment gauge as long as it doesn't look horrifically bad by eye.
E2A: just noticed you said it's a four speed so you'll need to improvise an alignment gauge because normal ones only work down to 18" wheel sizes.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Should we not condemn the violence by people preaching the gospel of St Tommy? And Tommy would claim to be of the right. That's not to say violence from the other side should get a free pass.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
So you're suggesting it's all a matter of cynical politics? And it's perfectly easy to avoid the 'trap.' The Tories just need to say they condemn all organised violence on all sides which clearly repudiates the far right.
It's not cynical politics it's a factual narrative, the nutjobs with their swastika tattoos setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels full of people, are wearing an emblem that denotes their political allegiance.
The vast majority of Conservative MPs and Conservative voters are outraged. They are not the problem.
But then there are "mainstream" politician like Farage and Anderson who are making hay with their alternative facts. Although some Conservatives have a culpability too. Braverman and Jenrick have based their political futures on othering immigrants. A new range of clowns like Nick Timothy are also using their genius to promote the narrative that "multiculturalism doesn't work"- a self fulfilling narrative. These people are cynical. Likewise Corbyn's fellow travellers including recently excluded Labour MPs who might justify attacks on synagogues.
These kind of Tories don't have a clue, do they?.
What people want from the Conservative Party is an alternative to Labour which is, above all, pro-aspiration. A party that is on the side of people who want to "get on": who want to start their own business, own a home, have a family, make a contribution.
This approach is a standing rebuke to the Farage/Anderson outlook - old blokes sat looking at a pint with only grievances on their minds.
The candidate who gets this, and looks and acts like a grown-up, deserves to succeed Sunak.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
An approach worth considering for Kamala would be "Who would Trump least want me to pick?". My guess is Mark Kelly - a standing affront to a blustering, narcissistic, blow-hard draft-dodger.
Arizona, 11 EC votes and leaning Trump anyway, PA, 19 EC votes and on a knife edge.
Dodging the draft did not stop Bill Clinton and George W Bush winning, even against veterans like Bush Snr and Dole and Kerry
NY Times has a round up and says that various people involved have said the final decision will come down to who Harris feels most comfortable with and connects with and feels is likely to be loyal whilst campaigning, and also, governing.
So Shapiro seems obvs for the EC votes he might sway.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I agree with your proposal, and I think the government should implement something like it - not least because it results in an effective increase in the household savings rate, albeit via an insurance product rather than a traditional savings one.
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
I am sure that insurance was part of the May “dementia tax” policy. However, I am pretty sure that the industry would have struggled to offer a policy at the sort of price May, and her advisers, thought was affordable.
Sure: that is inevitably going to be part of the problem. You will also get serious adverse selection, as the people most likely to need to care will the ones who purchase the policies.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I agree with your proposal, and I think the government should implement something like it - not least because it results in an effective increase in the household savings rate, albeit via an insurance product rather than a traditional savings one.
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
I am sure that insurance was part of the May “dementia tax” policy. However, I am pretty sure that the industry would have struggled to offer a policy at the sort of price May, and her advisers, thought was affordable.
Sure: that is inevitably going to be part of the problem. You will also get serious adverse selection, as the people most likely to need to care will the ones who purchase the policies.
Do you not just make it a mandatory insurance for everyone over a certain age, maybe something like 50 and give big reductions to people on low or no income? That way the risk is diffused across a much larger group of people and not just people who are most likely to need care.
To be fair, Elon made it clear what he thinks of Jews via his Twitter likes. And I find it curious that someone so obviously intelligent really believes that there's a secret cabal of Jews running the world.
Has Elon posted clearly antisemitic stuff? I’ve not seen it - and I’d be surprised. He’s quite philosemitic in my experience. Tho he is prepared to criticise the overt influence of the Jewish-Israeli lobby in Washington. And he surely has an arguable point?
If he’s come out with crackpot QAnon stuff then fair enough. That would be ugly and mad
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Where they usually find them. Run down towns and villages. Deprived parts of cities. Where they usually dump these people. Up here its the grimmer parts of Gateshead and Middlesbrough for example.
Wouldn't be surprised if they bought loads of properties in places like Spennymoor and dump them there.
With all the lack of community cohesion that brings.
Adding more poverty to areas full of poverty.
I think that given our deliberate 20 year crackdown on empty properties, there may not be that much available. In my area an empty property will end up with 4x Council Tax.
Though tbf I have not gone back and read the latest Empty Properties numbers.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Point is if attacking a black or brown people because of the colour of their skin is racist, then is attacking a white person because of the colour of their skin also racist? Seems like a fairly simple question to answer
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I agree with your proposal, and I think the government should implement something like it - not least because it results in an effective increase in the household savings rate, albeit via an insurance product rather than a traditional savings one.
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
Dilnot proposals were meant to help create just such an insurance market by placing a ceiling on how much risk there is i.e. no one will face bills of £500k+
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
If you've built hundreds of wheels and have studied Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" as if you were at madrassa in the Pakistani FATA not hard at all.
If you've never built a bike wheel then it's not easy at all. They are quite hard to true radially because the rims are comparatively small and therefore stiff compared to a 700c.
In summary, as a spiritual journey to epignosis, I recommend the experience.
You'll need this and this. As it's a single speed you don't need to worry too much about rear wheel dish so you can get away without an alignment gauge as long as it doesn't look horrifically bad by eye.
E2A: just noticed you said it's a four speed so you'll need to improvise an alignment gauge because normal ones only work down to 18" wheel sizes.
You know what... I think I'll learn to live with a little lateral flex in the wheels. If my power delivery is not what it might be... well, so be it.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I agree with your proposal, and I think the government should implement something like it - not least because it results in an effective increase in the household savings rate, albeit via an insurance product rather than a traditional savings one.
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
I am sure that insurance was part of the May “dementia tax” policy. However, I am pretty sure that the industry would have struggled to offer a policy at the sort of price May, and her advisers, thought was affordable.
Sure: that is inevitably going to be part of the problem. You will also get serious adverse selection, as the people most likely to need to care will the ones who purchase the policies.
Which is why to work these policies need to be compulsory with terms set by government.
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
That is a rather dangerous piece of logic. Although you don't specifically state it, the whole underlying theme is making excuses for one group of people targeting another group of people for the colour of their skin. You might want to reflect that the 'logic' of saying Asian attackers are only targeting white people because of the actions of others is used exactly by the far-right thugs who say that their actions are similarly 'caused' in reaction to the actions of Asian gangs.
To be fair, Elon made it clear what he thinks of Jews via his Twitter likes. And I find it curious that someone so obviously intelligent really believes that there's a secret cabal of Jews running the world.
Has Elon posted clearly antisemitic stuff? I’ve not seen it - and I’d be surprised. He’s quite philosemitic in my experience. Tho he is prepared to criticise the overt influence of the Jewish-Israeli lobby in Washington. And he surely has an arguable point?
If he’s come out with crackpot QAnon stuff then fair enough. That would be ugly and mad
He's "liked" some fairly crazy QAnon-type posts: you know, about how the Jews are engineering mass immigration to the US to overthrow white people. The bit I've never understood about this one, is how the Jews are supposed to benefit from the immigration of lots of Muslims. But, I guess that just shows how stupid I am.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Point is if attacking a black or brown people because of the colour of their skin is racist, then is attacking a white person because of the colour of their skin also racist? Seems like a fairly simple question to answer
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
If you've built hundreds of wheels and have studied Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" as if you were at madrassa in the Pakistani FATA not hard at all.
If you've never built a bike wheel then it's not easy at all. They are quite hard to true radially because the rims are comparatively small and therefore stiff compared to a 700c.
In summary, as a spiritual journey to epignosis, I recommend the experience.
You'll need this and this. As it's a single speed you don't need to worry too much about rear wheel dish so you can get away without an alignment gauge as long as it doesn't look horrifically bad by eye.
E2A: just noticed you said it's a four speed so you'll need to improvise an alignment gauge because normal ones only work down to 18" wheel sizes.
You know what... I think I'll learn to live with a little lateral flex in the wheels. If my power delivery is not what it might be... well, so be it.
Just wait until you snap a drive side rear wheel spoke (and you will!) then have them professionally rebuilt.
Just to add - don't think the Iranians will have ignored Biden's fears in letting the Ukrainians target Russian forces in Russia. Weakness in one theatre will be understood as weakness in all.
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
Of course they can be! Who do you think did the killing in the Subcontinent during Partition in 1947?
I think it would be helpful for the courts/journos to release screenshots of the offending text.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
I think it would be helpful for the courts/journos to release screenshots of the offending text.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
Sub judice, now, though, as the CPS reminds everyone. “It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
The demographics of Hungary tell you everything you need to know - as with Bulgaria anyone educated and aged less than 40 has left the country for elsewhere.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
Disappointing Matt. Authoritarian regime keeps things peaceful. How nice. What about the elections and cosying up to Mr Putin.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
No borders at all, in fact, give that Hungary is part of the Schengen zone.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
Perhaps because Hungary is run by an authoritarian **** like Orban, rather than a twittering class of talking head ***** like Farage and Goodwin.
Although I now understand why you cheer for Trump.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
But is wiping the floor with Vance such a big deal? Vance looks like he will wipe the floor with himself unaided tbh.
If the Labour government have decided they need to get tough on a sudden surge of violent and anti social behaviour, with rapid justice and tough custodial sentences....will they carry that on once it calms down? There's a gang of scum that ride around Loughborough Town centre, in broad daylight, on stolen scooters and motorbikes, with 2 or 3 of them on one bike in balaclavas and hoodies, weaving in and out of traffic and riding the wrong way down roads and kicking cars as they pass. They even comment on the multiple posts in the town Facebook groups about them. I've been waiting at traffic lights with a police car behind me, when the scum have driven past. They were gone before the copper had woken up. Cracking down on this sort of shit would improve the town immeasurably.
That's an interesting one, and I think is down to the local PCC and Chief Constable not giving it priority, plus resources etc.
The Met had huge problems with "snatch" phone thefts by scrotes on illegal motorbikes about 5 years ago, who baited the police because the police were not allowed to stop them for safety reasons if scrotes were not wearing motorbike helmets etc.
There are currently quite a lot of issues around motorbikers mugging cyclists for their bikes eg if a Brompton, and various routes eg in London which are no-go after dark.
Then they cracked the main problem by introducing guidelines for tactical contact for trained officers (eg knocking said scrotes off their motorbikes with a vehicle at point of minimum risk).
The feeling I have is that provincial forces have not followed suit. I've noticed small numbers of illegal motorbikers masked up here, but not deliberately reckless riding (I'm assuming drug distributors and copycats). Here we had all our PCSOs removed in around 2014-5 by Cameron and Co when they were slashing the police, and there has been less confidence around public space since, but serious problems have not yet developed.
I introduced the #pbfreespeech hashtag to track cases where PB discussed what can and cannot be said online. I never thought it would be for cases that were so bleak. There are some very bad people in the world.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
Of course they can be! Who do you think did the killing in the Subcontinent during Partition in 1947?
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I use Shimano PD-EH500 on my gravel/tourer/commuter. £40 so a good option for someone just starting cycling.
Single-sided so I can wear normal shoes on the way to work/pub. When I'm touring I spend half the time stopped to take photos or drinking coffee, so MTB shoes are best for wandering about.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I'm bemused that you can have issues/problems with pedals. Surely they just go round and allow you to turn them?
"Dear Shimano. I really like the pedals I bought off you. Unfortunately I discovered that they spontaneously combust every fifty miles. I exchanged them as per our previous conversation, but the new pair have started making lewd comments towards the neighbour's wife. Please may I exchange again?"
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
It reminds me of the hagiographic comments about Hitler's new Germany by right wing journalists in the 1930s. Why do some right wingers hate freedom so much?
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
If you've built hundreds of wheels and have studied Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" as if you were at madrassa in the Pakistani FATA not hard at all.
If you've never built a bike wheel then it's not easy at all. They are quite hard to true radially because the rims are comparatively small and therefore stiff compared to a 700c.
In summary, as a spiritual journey to epignosis, I recommend the experience.
You'll need this and this. As it's a single speed you don't need to worry too much about rear wheel dish so you can get away without an alignment gauge as long as it doesn't look horrifically bad by eye.
E2A: just noticed you said it's a four speed so you'll need to improvise an alignment gauge because normal ones only work down to 18" wheel sizes.
You know what... I think I'll learn to live with a little lateral flex in the wheels. If my power delivery is not what it might be... well, so be it.
Just wait until you snap a drive side rear wheel spoke (and you will!) then have them professionally rebuilt.
My Axon Rides has what I think are cast wheels with one-sided forks and is single speed.
Which has certain advantages .
But the e-assist range tops out at about 16-17 miles on this sort of territory.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
He'd be an immigrant and therefore ruin the place.
But in hardly any of the places that I've visited for 4 days have I ever seen any crime or riots, makes me wonder what this idiot normally gets up to when he visits a place. Or maybe the sight of him usually starts riots?
So basically the people who agree with the rioters are saying that they should be let off...
That isn't going to happen, if you look at any of the papers with the resources to put a reporter into the courts handling the cases the book is being thrown at them. Even guilt verdicts are being transferred to crown courts with the offender being remained in custody..
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
Some PBers are old enough to remember pro-USSR academics being ferried to the Soviet Union and returning idolising what they had seen. I have a lot of time for Goodwin's analytical skills, but he chose between analysis and advocacy, and chose poorly.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Should we not condemn the violence by people preaching the gospel of St Tommy? And Tommy would claim to be of the right. That's not to say violence from the other side should get a free pass.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
So you're suggesting it's all a matter of cynical politics? And it's perfectly easy to avoid the 'trap.' The Tories just need to say they condemn all organised violence on all sides which clearly repudiates the far right.
It's not cynical politics it's a factual narrative, the nutjobs with their swastika tattoos setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels full of people, are wearing an emblem that denotes their political allegiance.
The vast majority of Conservative MPs and Conservative voters are outraged. They are not the problem.
But then there are "mainstream" politician like Farage and Anderson who are making hay with their alternative facts. Although some Conservatives have a culpability too. Braverman and Jenrick have based their political futures on othering immigrants. A new range of clowns like Nick Timothy are also using their genius to promote the narrative that "multiculturalism doesn't work"- a self fulfilling narrative. These people are cynical. Likewise Corbyn's fellow travellers including recently excluded Labour MPs who might justify attacks on synagogues.
I think for Reform in particular this is a dangerous game; they risk painting themselves into the Nutter corner permanently.
We had the Leeanderthal Man asking questions on Twitter about a particular hotel, and the people there turned out to be nurses working at our local district hospital.
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
Given that he is subject to automatic deportation at the end of the sentence it's going to save us a few quid.
I think it would be helpful for the courts/journos to release screenshots of the offending text.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
I think it would be helpful for the courts/journos to release screenshots of the offending text.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
Sub judice, now, though, as the CPS reminds everyone. “It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
It reminds me of the hagiographic comments about Hitler's new Germany by right wing journalists in the 1930s. Why do some right wingers hate freedom so much?
Or the similar hagiographic commentaries by socialists visting Communist Russia in the 1930s
"I have seen all the 'terrors' and I was terribly pleased by them"
One might equally ask why some left wingers hate freedom so much. It would be an equally stupid question.
Andrew Neil @afneil Donald Trump still floundering in his efforts to come up with an effective strategy to deal with Kamala Harris. So he rounds instead on Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, still angry with him because he wouldn’t help Trump fiddle the state’s votes in the 2020 presidential election. Georgia is a swing state and Trump needs Kemp’s get-out-the-Republican-vote capabilities. Yet in his dismal speech in Atlanta you’d think Trump was running against Kemp, not Harris. If Trump carries on like this his campaign will implode.
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
You haven't taken into account the potential weasel wording there. 'five months after he was sentenced' leaves open how long the prisoner was on remand (presumably).
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I'm bemused that you can have issues/problems with pedals. Surely they just go round and allow you to turn them?
"Dear Shimano. I really like the pedals I bought off you. Unfortunately I discovered that they spontaneously combust every fifty miles. I exchanged them as per our previous conversation, but the new pair have started making lewd comments towards the neighbour's wife. Please may I exchange again?"
I've cycled over 15000km in the last 3 years in all kinds of weather. I've no idea what kind of pedals I have, but I've never had to "rebuild" them, whatever that means.
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
Given that he is subject to automatic deportation at the end of the sentence it's going to save us a few quid.
Then we'll get the Mail running the 'outrage as convicted thug gets free flight to Belgium' story.
All my fellow Bromptonauts need to print this. Otherwise your seat post fills up with mud/shit/libdem leaflets which then drop out on to the floor. Also prevents damage if you drop the seat post too fast in a folding operation.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
Given that he is subject to automatic deportation at the end of the sentence it's going to save us a few quid.
Then we'll get the Mail running the 'outrage as convicted thug gets free flight to Belgium' story.
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I'm bemused that you can have issues/problems with pedals. Surely they just go round and allow you to turn them?
"Dear Shimano. I really like the pedals I bought off you. Unfortunately I discovered that they spontaneously combust every fifty miles. I exchanged them as per our previous conversation, but the new pair have started making lewd comments towards the neighbour's wife. Please may I exchange again?"
Once you start "clipping in", then it becomes more complex, and you want a mechanism that it is easy to clean.
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
Given that he is subject to automatic deportation at the end of the sentence it's going to save us a few quid.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
It reminds me of the hagiographic comments about Hitler's new Germany by right wing journalists in the 1930s. Why do some right wingers hate freedom so much?
It wasn't just right wing journalists, David Lloyd George was fooled too.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
That is a rather dangerous piece of logic. Although you don't specifically state it, the whole underlying theme is making excuses for one group of people targeting another group of people for the colour of their skin. You might want to reflect that the 'logic' of saying Asian attackers are only targeting white people because of the actions of others is used exactly by the far-right thugs who say that their actions are similarly 'caused' in reaction to the actions of Asian gangs.
Honestly I am getting some unbelievable replies to that post. You say that 'Although you don't specifically state it the whole underlying theme is making excuses for one group of people targeting another group of people for the colour of their skin'.
The reason I don't state it is because I neither said nor implied any such a thing. You have completely misread it and presumably didn't read the posts before to which I was referencing.
My reply was because of the whataboutery of the previous post.
I was not making any excuses for the asians attacking white people and stated the full force of the law should come on them. What more do you expect me to say. But it is nonsense to assume that this wasn't happening because of the initial rioting, although of course it doesn't justify it in any way.
This nonsense on top of the post implying I thought Asians couldn't be racists. Of course they can. Anyone can. What I said was (these) Asians were not Right Wing Racists. They were young men looking for a fight or reacting to the racists in a violent way and possibly didn't care if they were beating up a white racists or just a white person. BUT is is surely obvious to anyone with half a brain the one thing these Asians weren't were Right Wing Racists. Honestly.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
Disappointing Matt. Authoritarian regime keeps things peaceful. How nice. What about the elections and cosying up to Mr Putin.
It's true. I suspect China also has low crime rate. Hungary is going through a demographic crisis at the moment compounded by low immigration I should imagine.
@GoodwinMJ I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK. https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
If Hungary is so wonderful why doesn’t he stay there?
It reminds me of the hagiographic comments about Hitler's new Germany by right wing journalists in the 1930s. Why do some right wingers hate freedom so much?
Or the similar hagiographic commentaries by socialists visting Communist Russia in the 1930s
"I have seen all the 'terrors' and I was terribly pleased by them"
One might equally ask why some left wingers hate freedom so much. It would be an equally stupid question.
We know why communists hate freedom. Because they think poor people are stupid, have false consciousness and need educating on their class needs. A dictatorship of the proletariat is needed. The question is why some Western conservatives do. They are supposed to want to conserve Western traditions, and yet they celebrate Putin and Orban who have dismantled democracy, the greatest of Western achievements.
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
Given that he is subject to automatic deportation at the end of the sentence it's going to save us a few quid.
The media narrative and implications seem quite misleading / inflammatory to me.
Yep he was sentenced to 16 months in jail starting from July 2023 (given that the arrest date seems to be late June 2023).
So he has already been in prison for 13 months and has at least 1 more month to go before being released.
The biggest problem here is that most people don't have a clue how sentencing and jail sentences work nowadays. If you do it's a bit of a none story...
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
More Jews than Muslims in Arizona and Nevada too and 5 times as many Jews as Muslims in Florida and of course in 2000 the Jewish vote went heavily for Gore Lieberman in Florida
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
If you think a gay man on the ticket doesn't harm it with middle America, you are sadly mistaken.
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I have double sided pedals on my main 700C cycle, which are fine, but tbh I haven't used the SPD side for several years.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
More Jews than Muslims in Arizona and Nevada too and 5 times as many Jews as Muslims in Florida and of course in 2000 the Jewish vote went heavily for Gore Lieberman in Florida
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
More Jews than Muslims in Arizona and Nevada too and 5 times as many Jews as Muslims in Florida and of course in 2000 the Jewish vote went heavily for Gore Lieberman in Florida
Kamala has a Jewish husband, though. So she might not need to boost her appeal to that demographic.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
But is wiping the floor with Vance such a big deal? Vance looks like he will wipe the floor with himself unaided tbh.
In retrospect, and probably prospect, JDV was a terrible VP pick. He amplifies DJT's negatives of weird shithousery and provides zero positives. I suspect he was selected because he's a reformed Trump critic and DJT's monstrous vanity could not resist parading that supplication.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
If you think a gay man on the ticket doesn't harm it with middle America, you are sadly mistaken.
You misunderstand the point I was making, which was that the "minimise-harm" pick was the better option.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
More Jews than Muslims in Arizona and Nevada too and 5 times as many Jews as Muslims in Florida and of course in 2000 the Jewish vote went heavily for Gore Lieberman in Florida
BF thinks it is Shapiro or Walz.
It would be bloody hilarious if Harris picked Joe Biden.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
More Jews than Muslims in Arizona and Nevada too and 5 times as many Jews as Muslims in Florida and of course in 2000 the Jewish vote went heavily for Gore Lieberman in Florida
BF thinks it is Shapiro or Walz.
It would be bloody hilarious if Harris picked Joe Biden.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
1.2% of Michigan is Jewish like Shapiro, not much less than the 2% that is Muslim. 15% of the state is African American and their turnout for Harris easily outweights any Muslims staying home or voting Stein or West
What is the function of a VP pick? I argue that it is to be anodyne and not endanger the ticket: a minimise-harm approach. I could see the advantage of a maximise-enthusiasm candidate: but if that was the case I'd choose Buttigieg, not Shapiro. Should the next 100 days to be a discussion about whether VP-candidate Shapiro is a drag or benefit on the ticket? If you are explaining, you are losing.
In an ultra close presidential election (and on current polls this will be the closest presidential election since 2000) a VP pick can make all the difference in a key state. PA is the key state in this election as Florida was in 2000.
More Jews than Muslims in Arizona and Nevada too and 5 times as many Jews as Muslims in Florida and of course in 2000 the Jewish vote went heavily for Gore Lieberman in Florida
BF thinks it is Shapiro or Walz.
It would be bloody hilarious if Harris picked Joe Biden.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
The story I heard was that the hotels policy was because it was found that by block booking a hotel for a year, it was cheaper than trying to find lots of separate properties.
This was because hotels operate seasonally and are rarely 100% full. So a steady price for the whole thing, considerably below *the normal price* is very profitable for the owners. Especially when they can bin a lot of the staff.
I wonder if a move to spread out the properties like that is to get rid of focal points for the scum to attack?
Edwin Hayward @edwinhayward · 22m We know some of the rioters like to visit the EU, because mentions of interrupted holiday plans (the result of being remanded in custody) have already appeared in some news reports.
Once ETIAS comes in, the EU will be closed to them for good.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
The story I heard was that the hotels policy was because it was found that by block booking a hotel for a year, it was cheaper than trying to find lots of separate properties.
This was because hotels operate seasonally and are rarely 100% full. So a steady price for the whole thing, considerably below *the normal price* is very profitable for the owners. Especially when they can bin a lot of the staff.
I wonder if a move to spread out the properties like that is to get rid of focal points for the scum to attack?
Or you could just manage numbers of people crossing by boat.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
But is wiping the floor with Vance such a big deal? Vance looks like he will wipe the floor with himself unaided tbh.
In retrospect, and probably prospect, JDV was a terrible VP pick. He amplifies DJT's negatives of weird shithousery and provides zero positives. I suspect he was selected because he's a reformed Trump critic and DJT's monstrous vanity could not resist parading that supplication.
Apparently Trump was going to pick Burgum because he likes rich people but Junior and Eric threw a fit.
(Top Brompton upgrade: I bought some removable dual platform pedals so I can "clip in" when riding. It dramatically improves the experience.)
I have Shimano XTR M9120 on mine because I ride it a lot in the rain and they are one of the few pedals that have properly sealed bearings and don't need rebuilding after every third wet ride.
I like to fold my Brompton into a very small space, so I need removable pedals. But on my road bike, I have the Shimano Deore SPD pedals and absolutely love them. They have been rock solid for years without the slightest issue.
I have double sided pedals on my main 700C cycle, which are fine, but tbh I haven't used the SPD side for several years.
I think you mean single-sided? And I'm the same - thought I'd use my MTB shoes all the time but usually end up using some walking shoes (or even sandals).
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
Of course they can be far right racists, but be sensible, I said 'almost certainly not far right racists' and clearly I meant in the current circumstances. Do you really think they are far right racists or do you think they are people reacting violently to the circumstances created by far right racists.
Anyone who thinks the Asian thugs in these circumstances are far right racists needs their head examining.
Why not? There are people from every culture I’ve ever heard of who go for
1) Death to the different 2) Hail to The Leader 3) Violence to achieve the above is awesome.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the “Asian thugs” don’t turn out to have social and political views that are very reminiscent of Yarxley-Lennon.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
But is wiping the floor with Vance such a big deal? Vance looks like he will wipe the floor with himself unaided tbh.
In retrospect, and probably prospect, JDV was a terrible VP pick. He amplifies DJT's negatives of weird shithousery and provides zero positives. I suspect he was selected because he's a reformed Trump critic and DJT's monstrous vanity could not resist parading that supplication.
Apparently Trump was going to pick Burgum because he likes rich people but Junior and Eric threw a fit.
I met Bergum before he sold Great Plains to Microsoft: I really liked him.
Edwin Hayward @edwinhayward · 22m We know some of the rioters like to visit the EU, because mentions of interrupted holiday plans (the result of being remanded in custody) have already appeared in some news reports.
Once ETIAS comes in, the EU will be closed to them for good.
When ETIAs come out, it would be a good time to start putting Europeans in the general foreigners line at British airports. No idea why Brits don't get their own line these days.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
But is wiping the floor with Vance such a big deal? Vance looks like he will wipe the floor with himself unaided tbh.
In retrospect, and probably prospect, JDV was a terrible VP pick. He amplifies DJT's negatives of weird shithousery and provides zero positives. I suspect he was selected because he's a reformed Trump critic and DJT's monstrous vanity could not resist parading that supplication.
JDV was meant to preserve the MAGA succession in 2028 as Trump cannot run for a 3rd term even if he wins.
On the other hand if Trump and Vance lose then that is a total defeat of MAGA and so a more traditional conservative like DeSantis or a moderate like Haley looks favourite for the GOP nomination next time
Comments
It would also be very interesting to see what the take up rates are.
Its the national headdress up North
Dodging the draft did not stop Bill Clinton and George W Bush winning, even against veterans like Bush Snr and Dole and Kerry
Wouldn't be surprised if they bought loads of properties in places like Spennymoor and dump them there.
With all the lack of community cohesion that brings.
Adding more poverty to areas full of poverty.
If you've never built a bike wheel then it's not easy at all. They are quite hard to true radially because the rims are comparatively small and therefore stiff compared to a 700c.
In summary, as a spiritual journey to epignosis, I recommend the experience.
You'll need this and this. As it's a single speed you don't need to worry too much about rear wheel dish so you can get away without an alignment gauge as long as it doesn't look horrifically bad by eye.
E2A: just noticed you said it's a four speed so you'll need to improvise an alignment gauge because normal ones only work down to 18" wheel sizes.
What people want from the Conservative Party is an alternative to Labour which is, above all, pro-aspiration. A party that is on the side of people who want to "get on": who want to start their own business, own a home, have a family, make a contribution.
This approach is a standing rebuke to the Farage/Anderson outlook - old blokes sat looking at a pint with only grievances on their minds.
The candidate who gets this, and looks and acts like a grown-up, deserves to succeed Sunak.
So Shapiro seems obvs for the EC votes he might sway.
But...
If he’s come out with crackpot QAnon stuff then fair enough. That would be ugly and mad
Though tbf I have not gone back and read the latest Empty Properties numbers.
Same as healthcare.
I just spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I've just landed back in the UK.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1820225513836925380
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/man-charged-intending-stir-racial-hatred
Although I now understand why you cheer for Trump.
AFAICS the Met Police figures are 90k stolen in 2022, and 50k in 2023.
Should those taking part in the recent riots receive sentences that are harsher than usual for that kind of crime?
Should be harsher: 49%
Should be about the same as normal: 39%
Should be more lenient: 4%'
51% of Reform voters think they should be the same though and 15% more lenient
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1820496786580230475
Single-sided so I can wear normal shoes on the way to work/pub. When I'm touring I spend half the time stopped to take photos or drinking coffee, so MTB shoes are best for wandering about.
See what I did there?
"Dear Shimano. I really like the pedals I bought off you. Unfortunately I discovered that they spontaneously combust every fifty miles. I exchanged them as per our previous conversation, but the new pair have started making lewd comments towards the neighbour's wife. Please may I exchange again?"
Which has certain advantages
But the e-assist range tops out at about 16-17 miles on this sort of territory.
But in hardly any of the places that I've visited for 4 days have I ever seen any crime or riots, makes me wonder what this idiot normally gets up to when he visits a place. Or maybe the sight of him usually starts riots?
That isn't going to happen, if you look at any of the papers with the resources to put a reporter into the courts handling the cases the book is being thrown at them. Even guilt verdicts are being transferred to crown courts with the offender being remained in custody..
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/gordon-gault-killer-lawson-natty-29682308
One of teenager Gordon Gault's killers is set to be freed early because the country's prison's are too full.
Lawson Natty was jailed for two years and eight months after being convicted of manslaughter in connection with 14-year-old Gordon's death. The schoolboy died in hospital six days after he was stabbed with a machete during a violent clash in Newcastle's West End in 2022.
But now Gordon's heartbroken mum has been dealt a new blow after being told that 18-year-old Natty is to be freed from jail early, just five months after he was sentenced.
Dionne said: "It's disgusting I can't get my head round it. It's just because the prisons are full. Our country is a shambles. No wonder knife crime is so high. It's not sending any message out. Gordon is just getting no justice whatsoever. If they have to release some people release shoplifters or petty criminals, but not someone who is convicted of manslaughter. It just feels like it's all been for nothing. We have all been robbed, Gordon is lying six feet under and no one is paying for it."
We had the Leeanderthal Man asking questions on Twitter about a particular hotel, and the people there turned out to be nurses working at our local district hospital.
I'm guessing this person may be getting a visit from Plod.
https://x.com/hetaldraws/status/1820566894505779415
"I have seen all the 'terrors' and I was terribly pleased by them"
One might equally ask why some left wingers hate freedom so much. It would be an equally stupid question.
Andrew Neil
@afneil
Donald Trump still floundering in his efforts to come up with an effective strategy to deal with Kamala Harris. So he rounds instead on Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, still angry with him because he wouldn’t help Trump fiddle the state’s votes in the 2020 presidential election. Georgia is a swing state and Trump needs Kemp’s get-out-the-Republican-vote capabilities. Yet in his dismal speech in Atlanta you’d think Trump was running against Kemp, not Harris. If Trump carries on like this his campaign will implode.
Also, of course, a Conservative Gmt policy.
Rescale the .stl for non-Ti seatposts.
There are also more Jewish voters than Muslim voters in Georgia as well as Pennsylvania.
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/jewish-population-by-state#google_vignette
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/muslim-population-by-state
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/gordon-gault-manslaughter-sentencing-every-28784251
The media narrative and implications seem quite misleading / inflammatory to me.
The reason I don't state it is because I neither said nor implied any such a thing. You have completely misread it and presumably didn't read the posts before to which I was referencing.
My reply was because of the whataboutery of the previous post.
I was not making any excuses for the asians attacking white people and stated the full force of the law should come on them. What more do you expect me to say. But it is nonsense to assume that this wasn't happening because of the initial rioting, although of course it doesn't justify it in any way.
This nonsense on top of the post implying I thought Asians couldn't be racists. Of course they can. Anyone can. What I said was (these) Asians were not Right Wing Racists. They were young men looking for a fight or reacting to the racists in a violent way and possibly didn't care if they were beating up a white racists or just a white person. BUT is is surely obvious to anyone with half a brain the one thing these Asians weren't were Right Wing Racists. Honestly.
So he has already been in prison for 13 months and has at least 1 more month to go before being released.
The biggest problem here is that most people don't have a clue how sentencing and jail sentences work nowadays. If you do it's a bit of a none story...
This was because hotels operate seasonally and are rarely 100% full. So a steady price for the whole thing, considerably below *the normal price* is very profitable for the owners. Especially when they can bin a lot of the staff.
I wonder if a move to spread out the properties like that is to get rid of focal points for the scum to attack?
@edwinhayward
·
22m
We know some of the rioters like to visit the EU, because mentions of interrupted holiday plans (the result of being remanded in custody) have already appeared in some news reports.
Once ETIAS comes in, the EU will be closed to them for good.
https://x.com/edwinhayward
1) Death to the different
2) Hail to The Leader
3) Violence to achieve the above is awesome.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the “Asian thugs” don’t turn out to have social and political views that are very reminiscent of Yarxley-Lennon.
https://x.com/broseph_stalin/status/1820785732673306980
On the other hand if Trump and Vance lose then that is a total defeat of MAGA and so a more traditional conservative like DeSantis or a moderate like Haley looks favourite for the GOP nomination next time