It’s looking sunny for Harris in the Sun Belt – politicalbetting.com
Vice President Kamala Harris has stormed into contention in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina, according to new polls from The New York Times and Siena College. https://t.co/XfH5z0BEEE
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
Freezing it at anything short of the Polish border would *always* have meant Ukraine keeping part of what Mad Vlad considers Russia.
Because he considers the whole country to be Russia.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
The actual complaint is that policing isn't two tier enough when it comes to far right rioters
It's funny, I remember someone used to reweight the polls when it was Romney v Obama to show that actually Romney was winning.
If anything, the presence of the abortion referendum on the ballot in Arizona is likely to mean younger voters, and particularly younger women voters, are likely to turn out in greater numbers than their current poll weightings.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
Is there anything in Trump's record that makes you think that he will defer to his VP on anything?
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
The actual complaint is that policing isn't two tier enough when it comes to far right rioters
Nonetheless I fear two tier justice might be a charge that sticks. It is not just that those on the right will point to the lack of action on the Whitechapel Bangladesh kerfuffle on the night the riots kicked off, or the Pakistan/Afghan punch-up on Pakistan's independence day recently, but that ordinary, law abiding folks will compare yesterday's five years for manslaughter with four and a half years for nicking bath bombs during a riot.
The problem with exemplary sentences is they seem unfair, and not just to right wing rioters.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
Two-tier policing was a regular complaint in Northern Ireland. You'll inevitably hear it more and more as English politics becomes sectarian.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
The actual complaint is that policing isn't two tier enough when it comes to far right rioters
Nonetheless I fear two tier justice might be a charge that sticks. It is not just that those on the right will point to the lack of action on the Whitechapel Bangladesh kerfuffle on the night the riots kicked off, or the Pakistan/Afghan punch-up on Pakistan's independence day recently, but that ordinary, law abiding folks will compare yesterday's five years for manslaughter with four and a half years for nicking bath bombs during a riot.
The problem with exemplary sentences is they seem unfair, and not just to right wing rioters.
To be fair speccy that was nicking the bath bombs, Gregg's vegan sausage rolls and pairs of crocs also was involved in a nasty incident when some ordinary members of the public had their car set upon. I also believe the absolute bell end boasted about how he was internet famous and did people want autographs, which the judge didn't take too kindly too.
I personally welcome a return to harshly punishing those who are involved in violent crime, especially those who violently attack the police. However, lets see if that is maintained going forward.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
Freezing it at anything short of the Polish border would *always* have meant Ukraine keeping part of what Mad Vlad considers Russia.
Because he considers the whole country to be Russia.
"Russia has no borders" means everywhere is Russia unless someone stops it from being Russia.
That is not just Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany... its also Alaska. That´s the problem with Imperialism. It is why the crooks and thieves who control Russia should all be put in jail asap.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
Is there anything in Trump's record that makes you think that he will defer to his VP on anything?
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
I think the betting markets are lagging. Harris is at worst going to shorten before she lengthens again, as a result of convention or debate or both.
I agree; unless something happens to upend the race, I think a Harris victory (of whatever size) is now significantly more likely than a Trump one.
Possible game changers ?
Some big protest at the Democratic convention (possibly Israel related); and relatedly, either a ceasefire, or an escalation of the Israel conflict;
Progress on the Trump legal cases;
The debates;
Further mental deterioration in Trump;
Trump sacks Vance (could be a ‘virtual’ - “you’re fired” - rather than actual sacking, which is legally dubious);
A genuine black swan…
Anyone got anything else ?
Actually, I think Trump and Vance are getting back on message, and I suspect that we will see a bit of a swing back in their direction.
Trump has really started to double down on the economy, and that is going to play in his favour. Now, whether that will be enough is another matter altogether. Likewise, this requires him to stay relentlessly on message, rather than going off on his personal vendettas and grievences, which it is far from clear he will be able to do.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
I see the Telegraph is the primary source for the PB faithful these days followed by a smattering of GBNews.
The woke Daily Mail seems to have lost its go to status.
I think its more that the Mail only news seems to be about some people called Molly Mae and Tommy Fury. Apparently they are famous for Love Island or something.
Hamas has described suggestions of progress on an Israel-Gaza ceasefire deal as an illusion, after US President Joe Biden said he was feeling "optimistic".
FPT: I haven't seen the numbers for the UK spending on food for the poor and health care, but would like to. But I can find some numbers for the US on both.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
Freezing it at anything short of the Polish border would *always* have meant Ukraine keeping part of what Mad Vlad considers Russia.
Because he considers the whole country to be Russia.
Where should we put the Ukraine / Republic Of China Border.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
It's funny, I remember someone used to reweight the polls when it was Romney v Obama to show that actually Romney was winning.
If anything, the presence of the abortion referendum on the ballot in Arizona is likely to mean younger voters, and particularly younger women voters, are likely to turn out in greater numbers than their current poll weightings.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
I think the way this has to work is that either: (a) posters are anonymous, and therefore the platform is responsible for any libels that might be spread; or (b) posters are identifiable (in the event of them spreading libels) and therefore the platform is not responsible.
Has anyone here had WhatsApp tell you that your account is blocked for Spam when you have done absolutely nothing that could ever be considered Spam? I use mine for business calls with a few people about one specific project and a few social relationships. Yesterday I had group messages and a call re a project and several messages with new girl in life and I suddenly was blocked out today and had to ask them to review and they say it can take 24 hours to 3 working days and you are only allowed one appeal. There is no way of actually contacting anyone to say “WTF”. One of my friends thinks it might be a malicious stitch up as ex’s daughter saw me out with new partner on Thursday so might be a drive-by but apparently I can’t demand to know if someone stitched me up.
It will cause me big problems if for some reason they don’t reverse this madness.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
Freezing it at anything short of the Polish border would *always* have meant Ukraine keeping part of what Mad Vlad considers Russia.
Because he considers the whole country to be Russia.
Where should we put the Ukraine / Republic Of China Border.
Perhaps letting all the Stans expand northwards would be a more just desert.
It's a real shame that there seem to be very few decent Russians left. I'm sure that perception is fuelled mostly by it just being the rich Russians that we see in the west, but I still think something died in Russia a while back - some great soul.
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
If someone on this site was libelling - say - Elon Musk, then:
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
What if there was a newspaper that allowed the posting of anonymous defamatory articles? Would that be OK, and would it be OK for the newspaper to hide behind the "well, we don't know who wrote it, we just print any old rubbish" defence?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
What if there was a newspaper that allowed the posting of anonymous defamatory articles? Would that be OK, and would it be OK for the newspaper to hide behind the "well, we don't know who wrote it, we just print any old rubbish" defence?
That's a good hypothetical but it doesn't quite work because there's no way to make the publication step equivalently automatic. Would the newspaper have an unlimited length for example?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
1) Yes. But the stuff which goes worldwide and is read by zillions is by that fact identifiable. I say it should be rendered accountable. The problem is scale: what was a phone call/chat in a pub now has a global audience. Bad stuff is said, but that does not mean the Daily Mail, Penguin books (currently liable), or X or Facebook (currently not liable) should be immune from responsibility.
2) No idea. A clever policy will make it mostly self-regulating; the Daily Mail self regulates, as does Penguin books. 'If you want to make money from the UK, these are the rules and laws you work under. otherwise you can't' That's not unfair. The rest of us live under the rule of law. Why shouldn't they?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
What if there was a newspaper that allowed the posting of anonymous defamatory articles? Would that be OK, and would it be OK for the newspaper to hide behind the "well, we don't know who wrote it, we just print any old rubbish" defence?
As if a newspaper would print “any old rubbish”. Now I’m off to read about Molly Mae/Tommy Fury’s break-up in the Mail and the psychic who speaks to Lady Di in the Express.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
Is there anything in Trump's record that makes you think that he will defer to his VP on anything?
Is there anything in Trump’s record that doesn’t make you think the pick was a piece of signalling ? It’s not as though he picked Pence for their shared interest in religion.
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
If it was broadcasting to millions, then it would certainly be regulated.
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
1) I am free to make an unedited printed publication which prints any old libels and incitements. But the producer/publisher is not free from consequence - like prosecution for incitement or being sued for libel. I am merely saying that the internet's current model is broken and bust and requires clearly being within the rule of law. Like the rest of us all the time. People make serious money out of this.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
Is there anything in Trump's record that makes you think that he will defer to his VP on anything?
Is there anything in Trump’s record that doesn’t make you think the pick was a piece of signalling ? It’s not as though he picked Pence for their shared interest in religion.
That contradictory. If he didn't pick Pence because of shared interests, what makes you think he did with Vance?
If Trump were the kind of Putinist stooge people claim, why was he on the right side of the Nordstream debate when so many others weren't?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
There is a sane reason: one is an edited publication and the other is a free-for-all platform.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
What if there was a newspaper that allowed the posting of anonymous defamatory articles? Would that be OK, and would it be OK for the newspaper to hide behind the "well, we don't know who wrote it, we just print any old rubbish" defence?
As if a newspaper would print “any old rubbish”. Now I’m off to read about Molly Mae/Tommy Fury’s break-up in the Mail and the psychic who speaks to Lady Di in the Express.
Of course they print a load of old rubbish. So do all publishers. How many bad books do they produce? The issue of course is that unlike the internet (mostly) they are subject to the rule of law.
The psychic who speaks to Lady Di and the commercial internet outfit that prints of an innocent: 'ABC murders small children and a group should burn his house down and murder him, meeting at this address with petrol and matches at 8 pm tomorrow' are both rubbish, but only one commits a serious crime.
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
If someone on this site was libelling - say - Elon Musk, then:
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
I agree with much of your nuance on this, especially with regards to the anonymity of posters
But the Internet is bigger than the Amazon river, and you've got a finger in a tiny dam in a small tributary of it
Internet policing is an extremely expensive game of whackamole
I think the betting markets are lagging. Harris is at worst going to shorten before she lengthens again, as a result of convention or debate or both.
I agree; unless something happens to upend the race, I think a Harris victory (of whatever size) is now significantly more likely than a Trump one.
Possible game changers ?
Some big protest at the Democratic convention (possibly Israel related); and relatedly, either a ceasefire, or an escalation of the Israel conflict;
Progress on the Trump legal cases;
The debates;
Further mental deterioration in Trump;
Trump sacks Vance (could be a ‘virtual’ - “you’re fired” - rather than actual sacking, which is legally dubious);
A genuine black swan…
Anyone got anything else ?
Actually, I think Trump and Vance are getting back on message, and I suspect that we will see a bit of a swing back in their direction.
Trump has really started to double down on the economy, and that is going to play in his favour. Now, whether that will be enough is another matter altogether. Likewise, this requires him to stay relentlessly on message, rather than going off on his personal vendettas and grievences, which it is far from clear he will be able to do.
I’m not convinced the economy is so strong an issue for him any longer - and the polling tends to agree with me. As he campaigns on it more, it becomes obvious just how incoherent both he, and the few things which pass for his policies are.
It’s also fairly likely there will be significant interest rate cuts before November.
Of course Harris could seriously misstep if she’s not careful, but the signs are (see the price gouging kerfuffle, and the massive GOP overreaction before any detail is announced), that it’s not going to be her that’s careless.
Immigration is their strongest card, and they are probably overplaying it.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
Is there anything in Trump's record that makes you think that he will defer to his VP on anything?
Is there anything in Trump’s record that doesn’t make you think the pick was a piece of signalling ? It’s not as though he picked Pence for their shared interest in religion.
That contradictory. If he didn't pick Pence because of shared interests, what makes you think he did with Vance?
If Trump were the kind of Putinist stooge people claim, why was he on the right side of the Nordstream debate when so many others weren't?
Don’t you understand what is meant by signalling ?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
If someone on this site was libelling - say - Elon Musk, then:
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
This illustrates well the suboptimal aspect of a solution and is a real problem. However, the millions of printed publications, with their trillions of words in incessant torrent have to ask exactly this question about every word they print. Can I be prosecuted? Can I be sued? Is this fair comment?
It is inevitable in the end that internet operators cannot be immune for ever from liability when no-one else is immune.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
One reason prominent Republicans tend not to speak out publicly against Trump.
Last night, my family was swatted in what Upper Merion Police are classifying as a politically motivated crime. This happened after I appeared on @CNN, where I discussed my decision not to support Donald Trump.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
When I went to Waitrose earlier I got a sudden yearning for seafood starters
I bought Coquilles Saint Jacques (scallops), potted brown shrimp, and gravadlax
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
If someone on this site was libelling - say - Elon Musk, then:
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
I agree with much of your nuance on this, especially with regards to the anonymity of posters
But the Internet is bigger than the Amazon river, and you've got a finger in a tiny dam in a small tributary of it
Internet policing is an extremely expensive game of whackamole
Agree the problem is real, but as and when, under a change in the law, a few people living in the UK who ran sites ended up in prison and paying zillions in libel damages, and the UK unilaterally switched off a couple of large outfits 'unless and until', the climate would change drastically.
I think that a number of people now in prison following the post Southport tragedies honestly believed that whatever you posted on the internet could never be a crime.
"Two-tier policing risks turning white British people into another ‘community group’ Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again Charles Moore"
The British Right never mentioned 'two-tier policing' all the while Boris et al were in charge, yet the moment they want to excuse rioting, vandalism and attempted murder it suddenly becomes a thing. Odd.
Never mentioned it when the irish were being persecuted either, funny.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
When I went to Waitrose earlier I got a sudden yearning for seafood starters
I bought Coquilles Saint Jacques (scallops), potted brown shrimp, and gravadlax
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
If someone on this site was libelling - say - Elon Musk, then:
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
I agree with much of your nuance on this, especially with regards to the anonymity of posters
But the Internet is bigger than the Amazon river, and you've got a finger in a tiny dam in a small tributary of it
Internet policing is an extremely expensive game of whackamole
Agree the problem is real, but as and when, under a change in the law, a few people living in the UK who ran sites ended up in prison and paying zillions in libel damages, and the UK unilaterally switched off a couple of large outfits 'unless and until', the climate would change drastically.
I think that a number of people now in prison following the post Southport tragedies honestly believed that whatever you posted on the internet could never be a crime.
Given the habit of reporting crimes to the police over Farcebook postings, in that kind of thuggish community, I find that surprising.
Or maybe not. Maybe they think it is only a crime when other people do it?
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
It was also based on telling Russia to agree to his terms or he will authorise Ukraine to hit them much harder. That's now more credible.
Given his general complete incoherence in recent weeks, and the selection of a VP who doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine, it really isn’t.
Is there anything in Trump's record that makes you think that he will defer to his VP on anything?
Is there anything in Trump’s record that doesn’t make you think the pick was a piece of signalling ? It’s not as though he picked Pence for their shared interest in religion.
That contradictory. If he didn't pick Pence because of shared interests, what makes you think he did with Vance?
If Trump were the kind of Putinist stooge people claim, why was he on the right side of the Nordstream debate when so many others weren't?
Don’t you understand what is meant by signalling ?
You're acting like Republicans who criticised Harris for not visiting the border to which she replied, "And I haven't been to Europe." There are other issues than your own obsessions.
Vance is merely indifferent to the war in Ukraine, which is a perfectly respectable position for an American politician to have. It doesn't have any greater significance than that and he would have no responsibility for foreign policy.
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
In the end something will happen to adjust the current situation where a publisher is unable to say all sorts of things, including true things, because of restraints and risks, while outfits like X and Facebook are a total free for all, and therefore full of libels, falsehoods and incitements.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
The libels, falsehoods and incitement will just come from somewhere else
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
If someone on this site was libelling - say - Elon Musk, then:
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
It sounds like a difficult and largely thankless task. I would just say thanks for keeping the site going.
Regarding speech, one question is how much public knowledge is there about the laws about incitement, harrassment, 'malicious communications' - or civil rules about libel etc. I didn't really know about these things until I was in my late 30s and took an interest in them. I don't think people generally know about them. People are also told that they have 'free speech' and 'its a free country' but this is a dangerous idea because it isn't correct. If you look at the current round of arrests and imprisonment, I think a lot of people just didn't know what they were doing was wrong/illegal.
NYT - Breaking news: George Santos is expected to plead guilty, people close to the case say
Mr. Santos could change his mind, but witnesses in his campaign fraud case were told by federal prosecutors that he intends to plead guilty on Monday.
SSI - One wonders, just how much Republicans MIGHT have had to pay ex-US Reprentative and mega-MAGA Republican George Santos, in order to make his case including 23 separate felony charges, simply go away, in the lead-up to the First Tuesday Before the First Monday in November?
Reckon that GS will let us know . . . at some point in future . . .
Another question, is whether 'regulating the internet' is even the right question given that a lot of information is now circulated on messaging apps. In some ways it seems like the internet is already in the past, we are in a 'sunset' activity.
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Trump actually shifted the Republican platform away from "the fundamentalist Christian agenda" by overturned a decades-long policy supporting a federal ban on abortion.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Trump actually shifted the Republican platform away from "the fundamentalist Christian agenda" by overturned a decades-long policy supporting a federal ban on abortion.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton would celebrate overturning fifty years of precedent and Roe v Wade.
One reason prominent Republicans tend not to speak out publicly against Trump.
Last night, my family was swatted in what Upper Merion Police are classifying as a politically motivated crime. This happened after I appeared on @CNN, where I discussed my decision not to support Donald Trump.
One reason prominent Republicans tend not to speak out publicly against Trump.
Last night, my family was swatted in what Upper Merion Police are classifying as a politically motivated crime. This happened after I appeared on @CNN, where I discussed my decision not to support Donald Trump.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
When I went to Waitrose earlier I got a sudden yearning for seafood starters
I bought Coquilles Saint Jacques (scallops), potted brown shrimp, and gravadlax
Had no idea one could buy potted shrimp at Waitrose. Must remember that the next time we get stuff from them.
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Trump actually shifted the Republican platform away from "the fundamentalist Christian agenda" by overturned a decades-long policy supporting a federal ban on abortion.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton would celebrate overturning fifty years of precedent and Roe v Wade.
Don't be ridiculous.
Clinton of "safe, legal and rare" fame?
If he could have triangulated by turning it into a question for the states, he absolutely would have done.
I’ve just reported someone to the police for the first time in my life and I feel like an arsehole but this kid needs to have a wrap on the knuckles.
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Should have used a Boyes 0.55
Be British.
I should have however I was just going to Waitrose so only packed my Walther ppk so it didn’t disrupt the cut of my linen suit.
When I went to Waitrose earlier I got a sudden yearning for seafood starters
I bought Coquilles Saint Jacques (scallops), potted brown shrimp, and gravadlax
Had no idea one could buy potted shrimp at Waitrose. Must remember that the next time we get stuff from them.
Potted shrimp is one of life’s great simple pleasures. It’s in the list of the best things to have on toast along with Rillettes and Mrs Ball’s Chutney for those of us more partial to savoury flavours.
Edited to say, the rillettes and Mrs ball’s chutney aren’t eaten on same toast.
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Trump actually shifted the Republican platform away from "the fundamentalist Christian agenda" by overturned a decades-long policy supporting a federal ban on abortion.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton would celebrate overturning fifty years of precedent and Roe v Wade.
Don't be ridiculous.
Clinton of "safe, legal and rare" fame?
If he could have triangulated by turning it into a question for the states, he absolutely would have done.
The guy who appointed Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court. You persist in being ridiculous.
Nigel Farage gets £95000 a month from GB News I have never watched or listened to GB News, and am not quite sure if it is a wireless programme or a podcast or a TV station. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life but I can't find anyone else who watches or listens to it. So it can't be making money, and certainly not the money which would justify £95K a month on commercial grounds.
So someone is bankrolling GBNews, and if the internet is to be believed, and I fully accept that there is lots of fiction online, that is money from the Middle East. How is a parliamentarian allowed to be paid from abroad for something that has no apparent commercial basis? Aren't their any rules?
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Trump actually shifted the Republican platform away from "the fundamentalist Christian agenda" by overturned a decades-long policy supporting a federal ban on abortion.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton would celebrate overturning fifty years of precedent and Roe v Wade.
Don't be ridiculous.
Clinton of "safe, legal and rare" fame?
If he could have triangulated by turning it into a question for the states, he absolutely would have done.
The guy who appointed Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court. You persist in being ridiculous.
Well we're expected to believe that the guy who berated Germany over Nordstream is the one in Putin's pocket.
It's my impression the Musk and Thiel picked JD Vance for Trump. But if I am wrong about that, please correct me.
They certainly recommended him.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Trump actually shifted the Republican platform away from "the fundamentalist Christian agenda" by overturned a decades-long policy supporting a federal ban on abortion.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton would celebrate overturning fifty years of precedent and Roe v Wade.
Don't be ridiculous.
Clinton of "safe, legal and rare" fame?
If he could have triangulated by turning it into a question for the states, he absolutely would have done.
The guy who appointed Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court. You persist in being ridiculous.
"Ridiculous" just one word for it, and by far the nicest.
Comments
Robinson is a disastrous governor candidate for the GOP in N Carolina.
That is not going to help Trump hold on to the state.
New NYT-Siena poll of downballot Sun Belt races:
Arizona Senate
Gallego (D) 51%
Lake (R) 42%
Nevada Senate
Rosen (D) 49%
Brown (R) 40%
NC Governor
Stein (D) 49%
Robinson (R) 39%
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1824783286855487943
But you’re not here, so it’s fine.
Trump has a problem now. His "peace within 24 hours" in Ukr promise was obviously based on telling Zelensky there is no more ammo or rockets coming matey so you better agree a ceasefire and freeze the conflict.
Freezing it now means Ukr keeping part of Russia! Vlad aint agreeing to that.
Because he considers the whole country to be Russia.
https://x.com/WarMonitor3/status/1824807189023691094
https://dnyuz.com/2024/08/16/the-polls-have-shifted-toward-harris-is-it-real-or-something-else/
Engaging with minorities through group ‘leaders’ has perverted policing. Let’s not make that error again
Charles Moore"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/16/two-tier-policing-turning-white-british-community-group/
Possible game changers ?
Some big protest at the Democratic convention (possibly Israel related);
and relatedly, either a ceasefire, or an escalation of the Israel conflict;
Progress on the Trump legal cases;
The debates;
Further mental deterioration in Trump;
Trump sacks Vance (could be a ‘virtual’ - “you’re fired” - rather than actual sacking, which is legally dubious);
A genuine black swan…
Anyone got anything else ?
If anything, the presence of the abortion referendum on the ballot in Arizona is likely to mean younger voters, and particularly younger women voters, are likely to turn out in greater numbers than their current poll weightings.
Javier Milei criticised the social media arrests in the UK, boasting that Argentina was moving in the opposite direction."
https://x.com/unherd/status/1824559276779540742
The problem with exemplary sentences is they seem unfair, and not just to right wing rioters.
Newcastle man jailed after killing victim in 'senseless' one-punch attack at Gosforth Hotel
https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2024-08-16/man-jailed-after-killing-victim-in-senseless-one-punch-attack-at-pub
I personally welcome a return to harshly punishing those who are involved in violent crime, especially those who violently attack the police. However, lets see if that is maintained going forward.
That is not just Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany... its also Alaska. That´s the problem with Imperialism. It is why the crooks and thieves who control Russia should all be put in jail asap.
The woke Daily Mail seems to have lost its go to status.
Trump has really started to double down on the economy, and that is going to play in his favour. Now, whether that will be enough is another matter altogether. Likewise, this requires him to stay relentlessly on message, rather than going off on his personal vendettas and grievences, which it is far from clear he will be able to do.
BBC News - Gaza ceasefire progress is an illusion, says Hamas
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdewq4v8wo
First: "In FY 2023, SNAP served an average of 42.1 million participants per month. Federal SNAP spending totaled $112.8 billion and benefits averaged $211.93 per participant per month."
source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research/
SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly still called "food stamps", though the actual stamps vanished years and years ago.
Benefits go to those officially classed as poor, though not all poor people ask for them.
Second: About 90 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, a health insurance program for low income people in the United States and territories: https://www.statista.com/statistics/245347/total-medicaid-enrollment-since-1966/
More than 800 billion dollars is spent each year on Medicaid by the federal government, the states, and the territories: https://www.statista.com/statistics/245348/total-medicaid-expenditure-since-1966/
People who are low income and old are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare
Does the UK government spend more per capita on similar programs?
(For the record: I have been on the Medicare program for some years now, and used it to pay for most of the cost of getting my cataracts fixed.)
SPUD is better
A bunch of kids on their 50ccs were driving behind me in a flock (what’s the collective noun for kids on mopeds?) and the two guys at the front sometimes only about three feet. One of those two started reading his phone as riding along then started filming himself and his mates selfie style whilst we were all going around 40 on windy roads with loads of concealed junctions and driveways. Nearly backended me a couple of times.
Eventually I stopped the car and got out and went mental at the kid for being an absolute dick and pointed out he could,d have killed himself, his mates or any pedestrians who stepped out. They were all obviously telling me to fuck off and gesturing at me which basically made me decide to involve the police. I told him I was taking his plate number and he kept trying to back up so I couldn’t get it but I did.
Phoned the constabulary once I pulled up properly. I explained I would never usually do this, kids will do stupid things, I’ve done stupid things but this prick could have ended up dead or killing someone else for social media likes.
The policeman on the phone asked if I had any footage - obvs not I was driving not filming my journey - so I pointed out they’ve probably provided the footage themselves on their social media.
But I really feel like an arsehole now, I wonder if they will try and claim some bullshit that I assaulted them or something, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if they had gone on and run over a child or something else grim.
Should I have just left it at calling them every name under the sun and teaching them new swear words ?
Correction: incredible.
More bilge pumped on PB by one of Trump's leading fluffers . . . also one of Putin's prize pimps . . .
X to close operations in Brazil 'effective immediately'
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1824837388310364565
To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise and keep quiet.
Be British.
Personally I would make them all publishers and all websites available openly in the UK have to have a UK agent (publisher) would would be the body (with responsible individuals) you sue for libel/prosecute for incitement. Without which you are turned off. There is no sane reason why X should be immune when the editor of the Daily Mail is not. They are commercial money making outfits.
What is suboptimal about this is obvious. But I don't actually think anything else will work. This might not either of course.
How much do you think we should spend on regulating the entire internet?
It will cause me big problems if for some reason they don’t reverse this madness.
It's a real shame that there seem to be very few decent Russians left. I'm sure that perception is fuelled mostly by it just being the rich Russians that we see in the west, but I still think something died in Russia a while back - some great soul.
(a) can (or should) the site moderate to remove potentially libellous comments? Or would that be us suppressing free speech?
(b) in the event that the site does not remove the comment, and the commenter is anonymous, is the site responsible for the content? Can Elon sue PB for libel?
There are obviously many iterations of this. And the Internet needs to sort it out. Because once people have imbibed a falsehood, then - even if the truth is later discovered - they will still cling to a bit of the lie. Millions of Brits, for example, still think Lord McAlpine was a paedophile.
Would you ban a cafe or pub if it became known as a hotbed of rumour and gossip?
2) No idea. A clever policy will make it mostly self-regulating; the Daily Mail self regulates, as does Penguin books. 'If you want to make money from the UK, these are the rules and laws you work under. otherwise you can't' That's not unfair. The rest of us live under the rule of law. Why shouldn't they?
That’s when you pick up the Webley–Fosbery
Walthers are for those expense accounts snobs.
It’s not as though he picked Pence for their shared interest in religion.
2) No.
Welrod .32 at the Range: British SOE's Silent Assassin's Pistol
If Trump were the kind of Putinist stooge people claim, why was he on the right side of the Nordstream debate when so many others weren't?
The psychic who speaks to Lady Di and the commercial internet outfit that prints of an innocent: 'ABC murders small children and a group should burn his house down and murder him, meeting at this address with petrol and matches at 8 pm tomorrow' are both rubbish, but only one commits a serious crime.
But the Internet is bigger than the Amazon river, and you've got a finger in a tiny dam in a small tributary of it
Internet policing is an extremely expensive game of whackamole
As he campaigns on it more, it becomes obvious just how incoherent both he, and the few things which pass for his policies are.
It’s also fairly likely there will be significant interest rate cuts before November.
Of course Harris could seriously misstep if she’s not careful, but the signs are (see the price gouging kerfuffle, and the massive GOP overreaction before any detail is announced), that it’s not going to be her that’s careless.
Immigration is their strongest card, and they are probably overplaying it.
It is inevitable in the end that internet operators cannot be immune for ever from liability when no-one else is immune.
The SOE types used it to snipe the drivers of German staff cars, so they say. Sounds like just the ticket for moped oiks.
Last night, my family was swatted in what Upper Merion Police are classifying as a politically motivated crime. This happened after I appeared on
@CNN, where I discussed my decision not to support Donald Trump.
I want to be clear: these types of attacks are exactly why I’m speaking out against the MAGA wing of my party and why I’m proudly voting for Kamala Harris.
https://x.com/McCaffery2032/status/1824811613758615729
I bought Coquilles Saint Jacques (scallops), potted brown shrimp, and gravadlax
I think that a number of people now in prison following the post Southport tragedies honestly believed that whatever you posted on the internet could never be a crime.
Or maybe not. Maybe they think it is only a crime when other people do it?
(According to the WaPo, the VFW has 1.5 million members.)
He’s not normally reticent on such things.
Vance is merely indifferent to the war in Ukraine, which is a perfectly respectable position for an American politician to have. It doesn't have any greater significance than that and he would have no responsibility for foreign policy.
But recall that the one thing Vance was best known for in the six months before that was his vocal opposition in the Senate to any aid for Ukraine.
Trump picked Pence to signal that he was on board with the fundamentalist Christian agenda - and lived up to that in office (irrespective of his own lack of faith).
Why would it be any different with Vance ?
And has Trump ever shown any concern at all for Ukraine's fate ?
Regarding speech, one question is how much public knowledge is there about the laws about incitement, harrassment, 'malicious communications' - or civil rules about libel etc. I didn't really know about these things until I was in my late 30s and took an interest in them. I don't think people generally know about them. People are also told that they have 'free speech' and 'its a free country' but this is a dangerous idea because it isn't correct. If you look at the current round of arrests and imprisonment, I think a lot of people just didn't know what they were doing was wrong/illegal.
Mr. Santos could change his mind, but witnesses in his campaign fraud case were told by federal prosecutors that he intends to plead guilty on Monday.
SSI - One wonders, just how much Republicans MIGHT have had to pay ex-US Reprentative and mega-MAGA Republican George Santos, in order to make his case including 23 separate felony charges, simply go away, in the lead-up to the First Tuesday Before the First Monday in November?
Reckon that GS will let us know . . . at some point in future . . .
Yet more oral relief for Trump AND Putin.
In policy terms Trump is probably closer to Clinton than any of his Republican predecessors.
I told him I'd capture Korenevo and he said 'No way.' and I said 'way.'
https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1824803676562612332
Don't be ridiculous.
God knows how they will cope if he loses in November.
If he could have triangulated by turning it into a question for the states, he absolutely would have done.
Edited to say, the rillettes and Mrs ball’s chutney aren’t eaten on same toast.
A 16-year-old boy, who cannot be named due to his age, has been remanded in custody charged with stabbing an army chaplain in Co Galway.
Police told the court the attack was “frenzied” and believe the accused holds a “radical Islamist mindset.”
Nigel Farage gets £95000 a month from GB News
I have never watched or listened to GB News, and am not quite sure if it is a wireless programme or a podcast or a TV station. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life but I can't find anyone else who watches or listens to it. So it can't be making money, and certainly not the money which would justify £95K a month on commercial grounds.
So someone is bankrolling GBNews, and if the internet is to be believed, and I fully accept that there is lots of fiction online, that is money from the Middle East. How is a parliamentarian allowed to be paid from abroad for something that has no apparent commercial basis? Aren't their any rules?