Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
That's a long ass but fantastic header and I don't pretend to fully understand all of it, but my take is that no matter what the paperwork says, as long as you've got the most guns and lackeys on board, ultimately, you can rewrite the paperwork.
Wow, first rate header, congratulations David. Trump is a very dangerous man and we are heading into uncharted territory.
I agree, really interesting and carefully-argued piece. It'd be welcome if David contributed leading articles more often - I'm sure the regular contributors would welcome it.
But I think the focus should perhaps be on Trump's VP, Vance. Trump is getting on and it's doubtful whether in 4 years he'd really want to go on. Vance is 40, and hard to pin down - he varies between quite conventional conservative and wild-eyed lunatic (see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o ). It's not difficult to imagine his developing under Trump to seeking absolute power.
That's a long ass but fantastic header and I don't pretend to fully understand all of it, but my take is that no matter what the paperwork says, as long as you've got the most guns and lackeys on board, ultimately, you can rewrite the paperwork.
Linguistically we made a mistake when we used the word "law" to describe how things in the physical world behave - law of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc.
These physical laws operate whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not. Energy will always be conserved. A perpetual motion machine will always be impossible.
But human made laws can always be changed. They only have force to the extent that we collectively believe in them and enforce them. So when we come to questions like whether Trump will remain President for a third term, the question is less, what is the letter of the law, but more, do people believe in that law and are they prepared to enforce it on Trump?
We have already seen with Trump that the normal rules of politics do not apply to him. He has been able to say and do things that would be unthinkable for a normal politician and still retain his popularity and credibility with an election-winning proportion of the public. We do not know what the limits are to this.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Thanks for the interesting and original header, David. I'm gloomy on Trump2. If my assessment of him is correct he's going to do a lot of damage. If we're lucky most of it will be domestic but with how important the US is there's bound to be fallout all over the place. Really hope I'm wrong. Almost certain that I'm not.
Mr. Taz, reminds me of Wednesday Addams going without a special costume for Halloween because she was going as a homicidal maniac, and they look like everybody else.
And yes, absolutely horrendous and alarming what happened in the French case. Worth remembering that evil often wears the most ordinary of faces.
Mr. Taz, reminds me of Wednesday Addams going without a special costume for Halloween because she was going as a homicidal maniac, and they look like everybody else.
And yes, absolutely horrendous and alarming what happened in the French case. Worth remembering that evil often wears the most ordinary of faces.
Yes, you're right and I remember the description of Eichmann "The banality of Evil"
I have to say that I can't get all that exercised about Trump doing away with jus solis, we did it over 40 years ago and it made sense then as it does now. It's just going to be difficult to get 60 senators to say yes to it and if he does it by EO then the next president can just undo it.
Jus solis is an antiquated idea that never took into account the ease at which people can travel for citizenship tourism when the idea was thought up.
Wow, first rate header, congratulations David. Trump is a very dangerous man and we are heading into uncharted territory.
I agree, really interesting and carefully-argued piece. It'd be welcome if David contributed leading articles more often - I'm sure the regular contributors would welcome it.
But I think the focus should perhaps be on Trump's VP, Vance. Trump is getting on and it's doubtful whether in 4 years he'd really want to go on. Vance is 40, and hard to pin down - he varies between quite conventional conservative and wild-eyed lunatic (see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o ). It's not difficult to imagine his developing under Trump to seeking absolute power.
Biden did, and Biden is no more incoherent aged 82 than Trump is now. Moreover, Biden doesn't have hundreds of criminal charges lined up against him the instant he leaves office.
9 USA 1 USA/Egyptian 4 UK (Maybe not necessarily for the taxman though... *Cough Bahamas*) 1 Abu Dhabi 1 Saudi 1 Thai 1 China 1 Serbia 1 Greece
Sad that fans have never managed to achieve communal ownership. A friend was a NUFC season ticket holder in the late 90s, for the money each fan was rinsed for in season ticket and seat reservation "bonds" (on top of the season ticket cost) they could have matched what had been paid for the club.
Mr. Taz, reminds me of Wednesday Addams going without a special costume for Halloween because she was going as a homicidal maniac, and they look like everybody else.
And yes, absolutely horrendous and alarming what happened in the French case. Worth remembering that evil often wears the most ordinary of faces.
Yes, you're right and I remember the description of Eichmann "The banality of Evil"
The Scottish organiser for Reform UK has been dismissed after his links to loyalist paramilitaries came to light.
Craig Campbell was a senior figure in Nigel Farage’s party north of the border until an investigation revealed that his father and his uncle had been among nine people who were jailed for pub bombings in Glasgow in the 1970s.
William Campbell has been named in news reports as the commander in Glasgow of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organisation that was active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It was also revealed that Craig Campbell’s cousin, Jason, was jailed for life for the sectarian murder of a 16-year-old Celtic supporter in Glasgow in 1995.
A spokesman for Reform UK Scotland said: “Craig Campbell is no longer a Reform UK Scotland organiser or member. Reform UK Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of anyone in any form.”
Hardly required an investigation. They're an infamous family in Glasgow. I'm surprised that the press, usually so relaxed about making spurious links between different people, hadn't picked this up earlier.
Given their role at Culloden I’m not surprised they are infamous!
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
Wow, first rate header, congratulations David. Trump is a very dangerous man and we are heading into uncharted territory.
I agree, really interesting and carefully-argued piece. It'd be welcome if David contributed leading articles more often - I'm sure the regular contributors would welcome it.
But I think the focus should perhaps be on Trump's VP, Vance. Trump is getting on and it's doubtful whether in 4 years he'd really want to go on. Vance is 40, and hard to pin down - he varies between quite conventional conservative and wild-eyed lunatic (see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o ). It's not difficult to imagine his developing under Trump to seeking absolute power.
Biden did, and Biden is no more incoherent aged 82 than Trump is now. Moreover, Biden doesn't have hundreds of criminal charges lined up against him the instant he leaves office.
Agreed.
And on Vance, while deputies do get ideas of power, I don't think he is there to take over the shop when Trump does finally retire; he's there to do what he's told.
No doubt he's fine with that. His career had probably already peaked had he not taken the post and in return for absolute obedience over the next four years, he gets to play the Actuary's Gamble, on an obese 78-year-old who has a bad diet in an incredibly demanding and stressful post. I've seen worse bets.
That said, he might also be up for a switcheroo in 2028 using the 12th/22nd Amendment loophole, again in return for some other post after resignation (or even to be reappointed VP).
But when the Don does retire properly, I'd expect his successor to either be someone from inside his own family - though the pickings there are quite thin and I expect he knows this; he's tried most of them out - or an ultra-wealthy colleague from within his movement.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
More people than we would wish to believe will enact the most depraved of fantasies, when they can. This reads like a novel by De Sade.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.
It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
I have to say that I can't get all that exercised about Trump doing away with jus solis, we did it over 40 years ago and it made sense then as it does now. It's just going to be difficult to get 60 senators to say yes to it and if he does it by EO then the next president can just undo it.
Jus solis is an antiquated idea that never took into account the ease at which people can travel for citizenship tourism when the idea was thought up.
You’re not concerned by a President taking away the citizenship of individuals by overturning the constitution ? It’s not a decision that is his to make.
This isn’t an abstract argument about the merits or otherwise of US citizenship laws. It’s about whether as president can take away constitutional rights without any check.
If he were to do it by the legal process for constitutional amendment, then plenty of people would be unhappy about it, but it wouldn’t undermine the basis of democracy in the US. But the chances of his succeeding in that are slim to none. Successfully doing so by executive order - which is blatantly unconstitutional - would put democracy at risk. If successful, it would effectively mean no limits at all on presidential power.
As I have posted before if there is a way around the two term limit then Trump will find it.
He's only planning to leave the WH to meet his maker.
That one's easy: he just runs for VP under a surrogate, who then either acts as his proxy or - more probably - resigns in his favour.
The bar on more than two (or strictly, more than two-and-a-half) terms only applies on election to the office, not on service in it.
Granted, that point has never been tested in court but as argued above, having the right people judge your case doesn't half help. But I think it's true on its own merits anyway, simply based on the 12th and 22nd Amendments as written.
I thought you could only run for VP if you were eligible to run for President?
As I have posted before if there is a way around the two term limit then Trump will find it.
He's only planning to leave the WH to meet his maker.
That one's easy: he just runs for VP under a surrogate, who then either acts as his proxy or - more probably - resigns in his favour.
The bar on more than two (or strictly, more than two-and-a-half) terms only applies on election to the office, not on service in it.
Granted, that point has never been tested in court but as argued above, having the right people judge your case doesn't half help. But I think it's true on its own merits anyway, simply based on the 12th and 22nd Amendments as written.
I thought you could only run for VP if you were eligible to run for President?
No, you can only run for VP if you're eligible to *serve* as President. It's the key distinction.
By contrast, the 22nd Amendment only places a bar on people being *elected* for a third time (or a second, if they've served more than half of someone else's); it doesn't explicitly prevent them succeeding to a vacancy.
Interesting thread header though I think it ends unnecessarily complicated as to what the loophole could be.
The major problem with the US constitution as it is in many systems is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
There is a naive assumption amongst many that a powerful judiciary is a defence against totalitarianism, but corrupted a powerful judiciary acting at the authoritarians whims is it's most powerful tool.
See eg Iran where those critical of the regime can be barred from even running for election.
If the Supreme Court is corrupted, and there's a reasonable argument it already at least partially is and has been for a long time with the partisan nature, then "justice" or "the constitution" is no longer in charge.
If SCOTUS can rule however it pleases because, reasons, then not only could a wannabe dictator get what they want through the Court but their critics are potentially handicapped from fighting them by the Courts too.
It’s an argument that has been made since Ancient Rome. The Roman Republic gave power, specifically, to a rich oligarchy. And carefully excluded the bulk of citizens - the Head Count - from any power. That was The Law and The Constitution.
In the end came the emperors, with the fig leaf of pretending to preserve the constitution
I told my American relatives, years ago, that if you make the Supreme Court the ultimate legislative chamber, then it was only time until it was bought and sold, like the rest. Bring lawyers (mostly) they didn't listen.
An interesting point was made by a French friend, commenting on the case of the Imam who got sent back to Morocco, against an ECHR….
Her argument was that by acting illegally, the French state was preserving the wider system of law. That if such actions were blocked by unamendable laws of rights, that the people would turn against the law as a whole. A interesting philosophical idea - break the law to save the law.
Break the law to save the law… I preferred Macaulay’s version: reform that you may preserve. It’s the same concept
As I have posted before if there is a way around the two term limit then Trump will find it.
He's only planning to leave the WH to meet his maker.
That one's easy: he just runs for VP under a surrogate, who then either acts as his proxy or - more probably - resigns in his favour.
The bar on more than two (or strictly, more than two-and-a-half) terms only applies on election to the office, not on service in it.
Granted, that point has never been tested in court but as argued above, having the right people judge your case doesn't half help. But I think it's true on its own merits anyway, simply based on the 12th and 22nd Amendments as written.
I thought you could only run for VP if you were eligible to run for President?
Strangely, I don't think that's the case. I think while only American citizens can be president, anyone can be VP. You're still not eligible to become president, so there's no point in being VP.
I may be wrong about this, but this is my understanding.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
Is it an extreme case?
What we know is that the offending continued undetected for a very long period. It involved a large number of people - none of whom went to the police about it. It was only discovered rather by accident due to investigation of an unrelated offence of upskirting, and only because the main offender had kept photographic evidence incriminating himself.
The horrifying possibility is that this case might not be extreme. It could be replicated many times over, with perpetrators who are a little bit more careful about not keeping evidence of their crimes on their computer, or who don't come to the attention of the police by committing other offences.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.
It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
I think her lawyer was right when he said that this case does not show that all men are potential rapists, but it does make it very clear indeed that such men are not at all unusual.
As I have posted before if there is a way around the two term limit then Trump will find it.
He's only planning to leave the WH to meet his maker.
That one's easy: he just runs for VP under a surrogate, who then either acts as his proxy or - more probably - resigns in his favour.
The bar on more than two (or strictly, more than two-and-a-half) terms only applies on election to the office, not on service in it.
Granted, that point has never been tested in court but as argued above, having the right people judge your case doesn't half help. But I think it's true on its own merits anyway, simply based on the 12th and 22nd Amendments as written.
I thought you could only run for VP if you were eligible to run for President?
Strangely, I don't think that's the case. I think while only American citizens can be president, anyone can be VP. You're still not eligible to become president, so there's no point in being VP.
I may be wrong about this, but this is my understanding.
You are wrong. Sorry. Final sentence of the 12th Amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
That said, the 20th Amendment clearly envisages the possibility of a president or VP being elected who is not eligible to serve (or not at inauguration), which is another loophole capable of exploitation.
As I have posted before if there is a way around the two term limit then Trump will find it.
He's only planning to leave the WH to meet his maker.
That one's easy: he just runs for VP under a surrogate, who then either acts as his proxy or - more probably - resigns in his favour.
The bar on more than two (or strictly, more than two-and-a-half) terms only applies on election to the office, not on service in it.
Granted, that point has never been tested in court but as argued above, having the right people judge your case doesn't half help. But I think it's true on its own merits anyway, simply based on the 12th and 22nd Amendments as written.
I thought you could only run for VP if you were eligible to run for President?
No, you can only run for VP if you're eligible to *serve* as President. It's the key distinction.
By contrast, the 22nd Amendment only places a bar on people being *elected* for a third time (or a second, if they've served more than half of someone else's); it doesn't explicitly prevent them succeeding to a vacancy.
That is, of course, not at all what the framers intended.
But the Trump lackeys on the SC only go with an originalist interpretation when it suits the Don.
That's a long ass but fantastic header and I don't pretend to fully understand all of it, but my take is that no matter what the paperwork says, as long as you've got the most guns and lackeys on board, ultimately, you can rewrite the paperwork.
Linguistically we made a mistake when we used the word "law" to describe how things in the physical world behave - law of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc.
These physical laws operate whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not. Energy will always be conserved. A perpetual motion machine will always be impossible.
But human made laws can always be changed. They only have force to the extent that we collectively believe in them and enforce them. So when we come to questions like whether Trump will remain President for a third term, the question is less, what is the letter of the law, but more, do people believe in that law and are they prepared to enforce it on Trump?
We have already seen with Trump that the normal rules of politics do not apply to him. He has been able to say and do things that would be unthinkable for a normal politician and still retain his popularity and credibility with an election-winning proportion of the public. We do not know what the limits are to this.
Trump isn't even President and yet appears to be able to control Congress right now by blocking the spending bill, with Musk acting as his enforcer by threatening to fund a primary election against anyone who steps out of line and votes against Trump's wishes. The US is so far beyond the usual rules and norms that debating what the law says should happen is reaching for a comfort blanket, but of little practical benefit to actually stopping Trump, or Musk* it seems, from getting what they want.
* The people who worried about Vance being the real "brains" appear to have missed the real power behind the throne.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.
It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
I think her lawyer was right when he said that this case does not show that all men are potential rapists, but it does make it very clear indeed that such men are not at all unusual.
And the other problem that follows from that is that these not unusual people will make up a not inconsiderate fraction of the jurors who are asked to decide on rape trials in a country like Britain.
The problem of rape is bigger than the criminal justice system, because it's so big that it undermines the criminal justice system.
I have to say that I can't get all that exercised about Trump doing away with jus solis, we did it over 40 years ago and it made sense then as it does now. It's just going to be difficult to get 60 senators to say yes to it and if he does it by EO then the next president can just undo it.
Jus solis is an antiquated idea that never took into account the ease at which people can travel for citizenship tourism when the idea was thought up.
You’re not concerned by a President taking away the citizenship of individuals by overturning the constitution ? It’s not a decision that is his to make.
This isn’t an abstract argument about the merits or otherwise of US citizenship laws. It’s about whether as president can take away constitutional rights without any check.
If he were to do it by the legal process for constitutional amendment, then plenty of people would be unhappy about it, but it wouldn’t undermine the basis of democracy in the US. But the chances of his succeeding in that are slim to none. Successfully doing so by executive order - which is blatantly unconstitutional - would put democracy at risk. If successful, it would effectively mean no limits at all on presidential power.
Although the birthright clause has TWO conditions. People tend to forget the second (although David mentioned it in passing) - “and are subject to US jurisdiction”
Could he make a case that the parents are illegal aliens. Therefore they are not subject to US jurisdiction - and have no protections as a result - but are simply automatically expelled (without die process) if apprehended. He can then further argue that the children of such individuals are not citizens
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.
It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
According to wiki:
The accused, who faced prison sentences of up to 20 years if found guilty, ranged in age from 25 to 72 and came from numerous walks of life – firefighter, IT worker, journalist, nurse, plumber, prison guard, and truck driver, with 41 of them being from Vaucluse.
Also from wiki:
[Vaucluse] had a population of 561,469 as of 2019.
Given the age range of the perpetrators, let's assume they come from something like 30% of the population.
So that's 41 out of about 170,000. Or 2 in every 10,000.
Now, it's still shocking, and, clearly, the opportunity brought in far more men than are likely to do something where they have to take the initiative, but it isn't quite like half the men in a village or small town.
That's a long ass but fantastic header and I don't pretend to fully understand all of it, but my take is that no matter what the paperwork says, as long as you've got the most guns and lackeys on board, ultimately, you can rewrite the paperwork.
Linguistically we made a mistake when we used the word "law" to describe how things in the physical world behave - law of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc.
These physical laws operate whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not. Energy will always be conserved. A perpetual motion machine will always be impossible.
But human made laws can always be changed. They only have force to the extent that we collectively believe in them and enforce them. So when we come to questions like whether Trump will remain President for a third term, the question is less, what is the letter of the law, but more, do people believe in that law and are they prepared to enforce it on Trump?
We have already seen with Trump that the normal rules of politics do not apply to him. He has been able to say and do things that would be unthinkable for a normal politician and still retain his popularity and credibility with an election-winning proportion of the public. We do not know what the limits are to this.
Trump isn't even President and yet appears to be able to control Congress right now by blocking the spending bill, with Musk acting as his enforcer by threatening to fund a primary election against anyone who steps out of line and votes against Trump's wishes. The US is so far beyond the usual rules and norms that debating what the law says should happen is reaching for a comfort blanket, but of little practical benefit to actually stopping Trump, or Musk* it seems, from getting what they want.
* The people who worried about Vance being the real "brains" appear to have missed the real power behind the throne.
The fun bit here is that Vance is put up by Peter Thiel, and Thiel and Musk have history.
Wow, first rate header, congratulations David. Trump is a very dangerous man and we are heading into uncharted territory.
I agree, really interesting and carefully-argued piece. It'd be welcome if David contributed leading articles more often - I'm sure the regular contributors would welcome it.
But I think the focus should perhaps be on Trump's VP, Vance. Trump is getting on and it's doubtful whether in 4 years he'd really want to go on. Vance is 40, and hard to pin down - he varies between quite conventional conservative and wild-eyed lunatic (see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o ). It's not difficult to imagine his developing under Trump to seeking absolute power.
Biden did, and Biden is no more incoherent aged 82 than Trump is now. Moreover, Biden doesn't have hundreds of criminal charges lined up against him the instant he leaves office.
Agreed.
And on Vance, while deputies do get ideas of power, I don't think he is there to take over the shop when Trump does finally retire; he's there to do what he's told.
No doubt he's fine with that. His career had probably already peaked had he not taken the post and in return for absolute obedience over the next four years, he gets to play the Actuary's Gamble, on an obese 78-year-old who has a bad diet in an incredibly demanding and stressful post. I've seen worse bets.
That said, he might also be up for a switcheroo in 2028 using the 12th/22nd Amendment loophole, again in return for some other post after resignation (or even to be reappointed VP).
But when the Don does retire properly, I'd expect his successor to either be someone from inside his own family - though the pickings there are quite thin and I expect he knows this; he's tried most of them out - or an ultra-wealthy colleague from within his movement.
Vance is (to what extent isn’t quite clear) the creature of the ultra wealthy, so they don’t necessarily need to bother with the office itself. And the outcome of the next election, assuming there is one, is hardly a foregone conclusion, too.
The Scottish organiser for Reform UK has been dismissed after his links to loyalist paramilitaries came to light.
Craig Campbell was a senior figure in Nigel Farage’s party north of the border until an investigation revealed that his father and his uncle had been among nine people who were jailed for pub bombings in Glasgow in the 1970s.
William Campbell has been named in news reports as the commander in Glasgow of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organisation that was active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It was also revealed that Craig Campbell’s cousin, Jason, was jailed for life for the sectarian murder of a 16-year-old Celtic supporter in Glasgow in 1995.
A spokesman for Reform UK Scotland said: “Craig Campbell is no longer a Reform UK Scotland organiser or member. Reform UK Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of anyone in any form.”
Are we going to proscribe SF in Northern Ireland, and all the Loyalist (not Unionist Parties*)?
That’s the CV of a lot of their top chaps (and chapesses)
On the upside that would leave us with the UUP, DUP, SDLP and Alliance.
On the downside we would get The Troubles back.
Personally, I would go down that route. I am against the Good Friday Agreement, and the hypocrisy of The Men Of Violence.
It is not the hypocrisy of the Men of Violence you need to worry about.
It is the hypocrisy of the very large number of people prepared to support them.
Yes
The voters had, in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance a range of parties that were fairly decent.
They chose SF and then, in turn the Unionists moved to the DUP.
Why?
Extremism was pampered, patted on the head. SF demanded police investigations shut down. They were. They blocked Stormont and got more concessions.
I still giggle at the people here who whined when the DUP blocked Stormont for *their* concessions.
I LOL’d at the death threats to the customs inspectors about the border. Other parties had been literally getting away with murder (87 people in a pub toilet) - why not some death threats. That’s what wins in NI, these days.
The polite, decent politicians get told to fuck off. By everyone.
The face eating leopards saw the other face eating leopards being rewarded for eating faces. So they ate some faces!
The Scottish organiser for Reform UK has been dismissed after his links to loyalist paramilitaries came to light.
Craig Campbell was a senior figure in Nigel Farage’s party north of the border until an investigation revealed that his father and his uncle had been among nine people who were jailed for pub bombings in Glasgow in the 1970s.
William Campbell has been named in news reports as the commander in Glasgow of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organisation that was active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It was also revealed that Craig Campbell’s cousin, Jason, was jailed for life for the sectarian murder of a 16-year-old Celtic supporter in Glasgow in 1995.
A spokesman for Reform UK Scotland said: “Craig Campbell is no longer a Reform UK Scotland organiser or member. Reform UK Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of anyone in any form.”
Are we going to proscribe SF in Northern Ireland, and all the Loyalist (not Unionist Parties*)?
That’s the CV of a lot of their top chaps (and chapesses)
On the upside that would leave us with the UUP, DUP, SDLP and Alliance.
On the downside we would get The Troubles back.
Personally, I would go down that route. I am against the Good Friday Agreement, and the hypocrisy of The Men Of Violence.
It is not the hypocrisy of the Men of Violence you need to worry about.
It is the hypocrisy of the very large number of people prepared to support them.
Yes
The voters had, in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance a range of parties that were fairly decent.
They chose SF and then, in turn the Unionists moved to the DUP.
Why?
Extremism was pampered, patted on the head. SF demanded police investigations shut down. They were. They blocked Stormont and got more concessions.
I still giggle at the people here who whined when the DUP blocked Stormont for *their* concessions.
I LOL’d at the death threats to the customs inspectors about the border. Other parties had been literally getting away with murder (87 people in a pub toilet) - why not some death threats. That’s what wins in NI, these days.
The polite, decent politicians get told to fuck off. By everyone.
The face eating leopards saw the other face eating leopards being rewarded for eating faces. So they ate some faces!
Agree fully. This was Mo Mowlam's approach, and she was lauded for it. I could never see why. The politicians who actually forged the peace like Hume and Trimble were shat upon.
That's a long ass but fantastic header and I don't pretend to fully understand all of it, but my take is that no matter what the paperwork says, as long as you've got the most guns and lackeys on board, ultimately, you can rewrite the paperwork.
Linguistically we made a mistake when we used the word "law" to describe how things in the physical world behave - law of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc.
These physical laws operate whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not. Energy will always be conserved. A perpetual motion machine will always be impossible.
But human made laws can always be changed. They only have force to the extent that we collectively believe in them and enforce them. So when we come to questions like whether Trump will remain President for a third term, the question is less, what is the letter of the law, but more, do people believe in that law and are they prepared to enforce it on Trump?
We have already seen with Trump that the normal rules of politics do not apply to him. He has been able to say and do things that would be unthinkable for a normal politician and still retain his popularity and credibility with an election-winning proportion of the public. We do not know what the limits are to this.
Trump isn't even President and yet appears to be able to control Congress right now by blocking the spending bill, with Musk acting as his enforcer by threatening to fund a primary election against anyone who steps out of line and votes against Trump's wishes. The US is so far beyond the usual rules and norms that debating what the law says should happen is reaching for a comfort blanket, but of little practical benefit to actually stopping Trump, or Musk* it seems, from getting what they want.
* The people who worried about Vance being the real "brains" appear to have missed the real power behind the throne.
Wow, first rate header, congratulations David. Trump is a very dangerous man and we are heading into uncharted territory.
I agree, really interesting and carefully-argued piece. It'd be welcome if David contributed leading articles more often - I'm sure the regular contributors would welcome it.
But I think the focus should perhaps be on Trump's VP, Vance. Trump is getting on and it's doubtful whether in 4 years he'd really want to go on. Vance is 40, and hard to pin down - he varies between quite conventional conservative and wild-eyed lunatic (see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o ). It's not difficult to imagine his developing under Trump to seeking absolute power.
Biden did, and Biden is no more incoherent aged 82 than Trump is now. Moreover, Biden doesn't have hundreds of criminal charges lined up against him the instant he leaves office.
Agreed.
And on Vance, while deputies do get ideas of power, I don't think he is there to take over the shop when Trump does finally retire; he's there to do what he's told.
No doubt he's fine with that. His career had probably already peaked had he not taken the post and in return for absolute obedience over the next four years, he gets to play the Actuary's Gamble, on an obese 78-year-old who has a bad diet in an incredibly demanding and stressful post. I've seen worse bets.
That said, he might also be up for a switcheroo in 2028 using the 12th/22nd Amendment loophole, again in return for some other post after resignation (or even to be reappointed VP).
But when the Don does retire properly, I'd expect his successor to either be someone from inside his own family - though the pickings there are quite thin and I expect he knows this; he's tried most of them out - or an ultra-wealthy colleague from within his movement.
Vance is (to what extent isn’t quite clear) the creature of the ultra wealthy, so they don’t necessarily need to bother with the office itself. And the outcome of the next election, assuming there is one, is hardly a foregone conclusion, too.
Vance has a fraction of the personal pull of Trump. Which is part of the reason Trump is using him.
MAGA only works when a big minority of the population backs The Leader.
The Scottish organiser for Reform UK has been dismissed after his links to loyalist paramilitaries came to light.
Craig Campbell was a senior figure in Nigel Farage’s party north of the border until an investigation revealed that his father and his uncle had been among nine people who were jailed for pub bombings in Glasgow in the 1970s.
William Campbell has been named in news reports as the commander in Glasgow of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organisation that was active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It was also revealed that Craig Campbell’s cousin, Jason, was jailed for life for the sectarian murder of a 16-year-old Celtic supporter in Glasgow in 1995.
A spokesman for Reform UK Scotland said: “Craig Campbell is no longer a Reform UK Scotland organiser or member. Reform UK Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of anyone in any form.”
Are we going to proscribe SF in Northern Ireland, and all the Loyalist (not Unionist Parties*)?
That’s the CV of a lot of their top chaps (and chapesses)
On the upside that would leave us with the UUP, DUP, SDLP and Alliance.
On the downside we would get The Troubles back.
Personally, I would go down that route. I am against the Good Friday Agreement, and the hypocrisy of The Men Of Violence.
It is not the hypocrisy of the Men of Violence you need to worry about.
It is the hypocrisy of the very large number of people prepared to support them.
Yes
The voters had, in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance a range of parties that were fairly decent.
They chose SF and then, in turn the Unionists moved to the DUP.
Why?
Extremism was pampered, patted on the head. SF demanded police investigations shut down. They were. They blocked Stormont and got more concessions.
I still giggle at the people here who whined when the DUP blocked Stormont for *their* concessions.
I LOL’d at the death threats to the customs inspectors about the border. Other parties had been literally getting away with murder (87 people in a pub toilet) - why not some death threats. That’s what wins in NI, these days.
The polite, decent politicians get told to fuck off. By everyone.
The face eating leopards saw the other face eating leopards being rewarded for eating faces. So they ate some faces!
Agree fully. This was Mo Mowlam's approach, and she was lauded for it. I could never see why. The politicians who actually forged the peace like Hume and Trimble were shat upon.
And Major was slammed for not conceding enough to the paramilitaries.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
There is much one could say about this case, much of which has probably already been said here and elsewhere, but I would just add one slant from Mrs PtP who lived many years in France, some of them not far from Avignon. She thought there was a definite French angle to this. She was alluding particularly to attitudes towards women, proprietal attitudes of some men, the narrow provincial milieu. These added to the toxicity of the brew. She is by no means an Anglophile, but she did think this kind of thing less likely in this country. (We have other failings which will be passed over for the moment.)
For myself I would also add that a former gf once turned up late at my flat so intoxicated as to be in a comparable state to the unfortunate French lady. If I had raped her, she wouldn't have known. That I did not says nothing about my scruples. It was a completely unsexy situation. It would have been like fucking a corpse, or blow-up doll. It would also have been rape, without question. Non-consensual sex always is.
The men who did this too her deserve no sympathy. Not all men are like that, but too many are, and it's good that fewer will now be unaware of the likely consequences.
As I have posted before if there is a way around the two term limit then Trump will find it.
He's only planning to leave the WH to meet his maker.
Easiest way would be for the Supreme Court to say the 22nd applies only to consecutive terms.
Even easier to do the "stand as VP and then switch" thing. All the arguments over the 12th and 22nd with respect to this route are known to be fuzzy and arguable and would require the Supreme Court to rule on it if anyone actually tried it.
But could Barack Obama stand as VP candidate for the Dems to even things up?
The Scottish organiser for Reform UK has been dismissed after his links to loyalist paramilitaries came to light.
Craig Campbell was a senior figure in Nigel Farage’s party north of the border until an investigation revealed that his father and his uncle had been among nine people who were jailed for pub bombings in Glasgow in the 1970s.
William Campbell has been named in news reports as the commander in Glasgow of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organisation that was active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It was also revealed that Craig Campbell’s cousin, Jason, was jailed for life for the sectarian murder of a 16-year-old Celtic supporter in Glasgow in 1995.
A spokesman for Reform UK Scotland said: “Craig Campbell is no longer a Reform UK Scotland organiser or member. Reform UK Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of anyone in any form.”
Are we going to proscribe SF in Northern Ireland, and all the Loyalist (not Unionist Parties*)?
That’s the CV of a lot of their top chaps (and chapesses)
On the upside that would leave us with the UUP, DUP, SDLP and Alliance.
On the downside we would get The Troubles back.
Personally, I would go down that route. I am against the Good Friday Agreement, and the hypocrisy of The Men Of Violence.
It is not the hypocrisy of the Men of Violence you need to worry about.
It is the hypocrisy of the very large number of people prepared to support them.
Yes
The voters had, in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance a range of parties that were fairly decent.
They chose SF and then, in turn the Unionists moved to the DUP.
Why?
Extremism was pampered, patted on the head. SF demanded police investigations shut down. They were. They blocked Stormont and got more concessions.
I still giggle at the people here who whined when the DUP blocked Stormont for *their* concessions.
I LOL’d at the death threats to the customs inspectors about the border. Other parties had been literally getting away with murder (87 people in a pub toilet) - why not some death threats. That’s what wins in NI, these days.
The polite, decent politicians get told to fuck off. By everyone.
The face eating leopards saw the other face eating leopards being rewarded for eating faces. So they ate some faces!
Agree fully. This was Mo Mowlam's approach, and she was lauded for it. I could never see why. The politicians who actually forged the peace like Hume and Trimble were shat upon.
And Major was slammed for not conceding enough to the paramilitaries.
Blair and his “no prosecution” letters…
But you would have let the perfect be the enemy of the good and we'd still have the Troubles.
That's the thing with peace deals: they're unfair and often the wrong people get rewarded. But you have peace, people stop being killed, and things slowly normalise. The alternative is enternal war or the annihilation of one side or the other.
Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
I think one thing not mentioned explicitly by David is that a Constitutional Convention, which has not been done since 1787, can be called nationally. And that aiui once that has been called around one question (eg abortion) that Convention can then take a broader remit. So at the writing stage, fewer checks and balances operate. Ratification is still required by 3/4 of states.
I have seen reports on a long-term (ie decades) strategy amongst anti-abortion activists, including for example the Roman Catholic Right and the Federalist Society (a privately influential association of legal figures who drive constitutional 'originalism'), which in current politics is engaged alongside Trump, to use such a process to exploit control at state level. Control of the Supreme Court is one milestone on the route; if anyone is interested I may be able to find a reference.
I think the Supreme Court changes are a bit of a dead letter - that has already been bought and largely corrupted imo, for example by the many millions of donations in kind accepted and not declared by Clarence Thomas. I can see Trump himself enlarging it, but that would be a way of institutionalising his poisonous legacy for a generation.
Six out of nine SCOUTS justices are Roman Catholic, compared to one in five of the population.
Trump could also of course try to call a constitutional convention under Article V.
More likely though the Supreme Court just wave through whatever he says given how dodgy they've proved.
Well indeed, what laws or rules say matters little if a majority of people or those in power will not abide by them. Trump had managed to evade almost all accountability in his crooked life, and is even now arguing that having once been President shields him from prosecution for crimes committed before he was President. The only thing that will stop Trump doing what he wants is Congress, the GOP, or the courts growing a spine. Right now I see little prospect of that. Arguing about what law means when nobody will apply that law faithfully is pointless.
He currently owes Jean Carroll a bunch of money for repeatedly libelling her. Current law, including Supreme Court precedence, says he has to pay her. It will be interesting how he wriggles out of this one, what gymnastics the Republicans will go through to help him do that and how much further the rule of law will be eroded.
The Scottish organiser for Reform UK has been dismissed after his links to loyalist paramilitaries came to light.
Craig Campbell was a senior figure in Nigel Farage’s party north of the border until an investigation revealed that his father and his uncle had been among nine people who were jailed for pub bombings in Glasgow in the 1970s.
William Campbell has been named in news reports as the commander in Glasgow of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organisation that was active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It was also revealed that Craig Campbell’s cousin, Jason, was jailed for life for the sectarian murder of a 16-year-old Celtic supporter in Glasgow in 1995.
A spokesman for Reform UK Scotland said: “Craig Campbell is no longer a Reform UK Scotland organiser or member. Reform UK Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of anyone in any form.”
Are we going to proscribe SF in Northern Ireland, and all the Loyalist (not Unionist Parties*)?
That’s the CV of a lot of their top chaps (and chapesses)
On the upside that would leave us with the UUP, DUP, SDLP and Alliance.
On the downside we would get The Troubles back.
Personally, I would go down that route. I am against the Good Friday Agreement, and the hypocrisy of The Men Of Violence.
It is not the hypocrisy of the Men of Violence you need to worry about.
It is the hypocrisy of the very large number of people prepared to support them.
Yes
The voters had, in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance a range of parties that were fairly decent.
They chose SF and then, in turn the Unionists moved to the DUP.
Why?
Extremism was pampered, patted on the head. SF demanded police investigations shut down. They were. They blocked Stormont and got more concessions.
I still giggle at the people here who whined when the DUP blocked Stormont for *their* concessions.
I LOL’d at the death threats to the customs inspectors about the border. Other parties had been literally getting away with murder (87 people in a pub toilet) - why not some death threats. That’s what wins in NI, these days.
The polite, decent politicians get told to fuck off. By everyone.
The face eating leopards saw the other face eating leopards being rewarded for eating faces. So they ate some faces!
Agree fully. This was Mo Mowlam's approach, and she was lauded for it. I could never see why. The politicians who actually forged the peace like Hume and Trimble were shat upon.
And Major was slammed for not conceding enough to the paramilitaries.
Blair and his “no prosecution” letters…
But you would have let the perfect be the enemy of the good and we'd still have the Troubles.
That's the thing with peace deals: they're unfair and often the wrong people get rewarded. But you have peace, people stop being killed, and things slowly normalise. The alternative is enternal war or the annihilation of one side or the other.
Then understand that the DUP and TUV are The Legitimate Voices Of The People.
And that drug dealing and criminality has been crowned in politics. That foreign donations to NI parties are awesome.
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
There is much one could say about this case, much of which has probably already been said here and elsewhere, but I would just add one slant from Mrs PtP who lived many years in France, some of them not far from Avignon. She thought there was a definite French angle to this. She was alluding particularly to attitudes towards women, proprietal attitudes of some men, the narrow provincial milieu. These added to the toxicity of the brew. She is by no means an Anglophile, but she did think this kind of thing less likely in this country. (We have other failings which will be passed over for the moment.)
For myself I would also add that a former gf once turned up late at my flat so intoxicated as to be in a comparable state to the unfortunate French lady. If I had raped her, she wouldn't have known. That I did not says nothing about my scruples. It was a completely unsexy situation. It would have been like fucking a corpse, or blow-up doll. It would also have been rape, without question. Non-consensual sex always is.
The men who did this too her deserve no sympathy. Not all men are like that, but too many are, and it's good that fewer will now be unaware of the likely consequences.
Sort of adjacent, and around ignorance of rape - and that I happened to come across this week. This surprised me.
A piece on the BBC last week about "stealthing", which is non-consensual removal of a condom. A Love Island contestant, now aged 30, and an influencer / sex worker, did not know that this was rape.
A former Love Island contestant says it "took her breath away" to discover that someone removing a condom during sex is classified as rape.
Stealthing, as it is known, happens when someone removes a condom during consensual sex without informing the other person.
Megan Barton-Hanson says she experienced this up to six times, with a man claiming the condom had split on each occasion, leading to her having an abortion.
"I didn't know it was a crime," the 30-year-old tells the BBC.
"I just thought that's something between partners that you have to discuss with them."
Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.
The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.
There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
There is much one could say about this case, much of which has probably already been said here and elsewhere, but I would just add one slant from Mrs PtP who lived many years in France, some of them not far from Avignon. She thought there was a definite French angle to this. She was alluding particularly to attitudes towards women, proprietal attitudes of some men, the narrow provincial milieu. These added to the toxicity of the brew. She is by no means an Anglophile, but she did think this kind of thing less likely in this country. (We have other failings which will be passed over for the moment.)
For myself I would also add that a former gf once turned up late at my flat so intoxicated as to be in a comparable state to the unfortunate French lady. If I had raped her, she wouldn't have known. That I did not says nothing about my scruples. It was a completely unsexy situation. It would have been like fucking a corpse, or blow-up doll. It would also have been rape, without question. Non-consensual sex always is.
The men who did this too her deserve no sympathy. Not all men are like that, but too many are, and it's good that fewer will now be unaware of the likely consequences.
Sort of adjacent, and around ignorance of rape - and that I happened to come across this week. This surprised me.
A piece on the BBC last week about "stealthing", which is non-consensual removal of a condom. A Love Island contestant, now aged 30 and an influencer, did not know that this was rape.
A former Love Island contestant says it "took her breath away" to discover that someone removing a condom during sex is classified as rape.
Stealthing, as it is known, happens when someone removes a condom during consensual sex without informing the other person.
Megan Barton-Hanson says she experienced this up to six times, with a man claiming the condom had split on each occasion, leading to her having an abortion.
"I didn't know it was a crime," the 30-year-old tells the BBC.
"I just thought that's something between partners that you have to discuss with them."
I read that article, and was mildly surprised. A few years (maybe over 10 now...) I remember watching a TV programme about something similar only it was women doing it to get pregnant without the consent of the man, who became a father. He was then legally liable for child support.
I have no idea how the numbers stack up, but it can happen in either direction.
I think one thing not mentioned explicitly by David is that a Constitutional Convention, which has not been done since 1787, can be called nationally. And that aiui once that has been called around one question (eg abortion) that Convention can then take a broader remit. So at the writing stage, fewer checks and balances operate. Ratification is still required by 3/4 of states.
I have seen reports on a long-term (ie decades) strategy amongst anti-abortion activists, including for example the Roman Catholic Right and the Federalist Society (a privately influential association of legal figures who drive constitutional 'originalism'), which in current politics is engaged alongside Trump, to use such a process to exploit control at state level. Control of the Supreme Court is one milestone on the route; if anyone is interested I may be able to find a reference.
I think the Supreme Court changes are a bit of a dead letter - that has already been bought and largely corrupted imo, for example by the many millions of donations in kind accepted and not declared by Clarence Thomas. I can see Trump himself enlarging it, but that would be a way of institutionalising his poisonous legacy for a generation.
Six out of nine SCOUTS justices are Roman Catholic, compared to one in five of the population.
And they were worried about Kennedy being a Catholic.
I just would like @williamglenn to comment on why he decided to stop being pro EU.
You are mixing him up with William Glenn. Easily done. I have seen other PBers confuse both William Glenns with William Glenn and, sometimes – as farfetched as it might seem – William Glenn.
"A Labour minister has been named in an investigation into claims her family embezzled up to £3.9bn (Tk 590 billion) from infrastructure projects in Bangladesh."
I think one thing not mentioned explicitly by David is that a Constitutional Convention, which has not been done since 1787, can be called nationally. And that aiui once that has been called around one question (eg abortion) that Convention can then take a broader remit. So at the writing stage, fewer checks and balances operate. Ratification is still required by 3/4 of states.
I have seen reports on a long-term (ie decades) strategy amongst anti-abortion activists, including for example the Roman Catholic Right and the Federalist Society (a privately influential association of legal figures who drive constitutional 'originalism'), which in current politics is engaged alongside Trump, to use such a process to exploit control at state level. Control of the Supreme Court is one milestone on the route; if anyone is interested I may be able to find a reference.
I think the Supreme Court changes are a bit of a dead letter - that has already been bought and largely corrupted imo, for example by the many millions of donations in kind accepted and not declared by Clarence Thomas. I can see Trump himself enlarging it, but that would be a way of institutionalising his poisonous legacy for a generation.
Six out of nine SCOUTS justices are Roman Catholic, compared to one in five of the population.
And they were worried about Kennedy being a Catholic.
Jeez.
I can't tell what you mean.
We have noted here before ( @HYUFD I think?) that alongside the Right Wing Evangelical movement (which I have commented on sometimes) supporting Trump for essentially utilitarian * reasons, there is a Roman Catholic Conservative counterpart - JD Vance's current stance being an exemplar.
* Popularly self-justified by a rhetoric around "Cyrus the Great of Persia", who in the Old Testament was a gentile King who is regarded as helping the Jews. So support for for Trump is justified, despite his manifest crimes.
I just would like @williamglenn to comment on why he decided to stop being pro EU.
You are mixing him up with William Glenn. Easily done. I have seen other PBers confuse both William Glenns with William Glenn and, sometimes – as farfetched as it might seem – William Glenn.
Bit like the fools who conflate Zathras with Zathras. Let alone with Zathras. And as for the people who mistake him for that silly Zathras - they are past helping.
“So Zathras talks to dirt. Sometimes talks to walls or talks to ceilings, but dirt is closer. Dirt used to everyone walking on it. Just like Zathras, but we have come to like it. It is our role. It is our destiny in the Universe. So you see, sometimes dirt has insects in it. Zathras like insects. Not so good for conversation, but much protein for diet.”
I have to say that I can't get all that exercised about Trump doing away with jus solis, we did it over 40 years ago and it made sense then as it does now. It's just going to be difficult to get 60 senators to say yes to it and if he does it by EO then the next president can just undo it.
Jus solis is an antiquated idea that never took into account the ease at which people can travel for citizenship tourism when the idea was thought up.
There are good arguments to do away with jus solis. What is concerning is Trump ignoring the rule of law (again). If he was just campaigning to change the constitution going forwards through existing mechanisms, that would be fine. But he’s proposing to basically ignore the law and just do what he wants.
"A Labour minister has been named in an investigation into claims her family embezzled up to £3.9bn (Tk 590 billion) from infrastructure projects in Bangladesh."
Oh, look, it’s my MP.
I didn’t vote for her.
On the upside, we have the chair for the enquiry into COVID contracts all sorted out.
Think Roosevelt hiring Joe Kennedy to clean up Wall Street. Or Charles II hiring Henry Morgan to stop piracy.
“What’s your plan?” “Arrest everyone in my address book”
Comments
John W. Henry is a Democrat and a great owner.
9 USA
1 USA/Egyptian
4 UK (Maybe not necessarily for the taxman though... *Cough Bahamas*)
1 Abu Dhabi
1 Saudi
1 Thai
1 China
1 Serbia
1 Greece
The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
But I think the focus should perhaps be on Trump's VP, Vance. Trump is getting on and it's doubtful whether in 4 years he'd really want to go on. Vance is 40, and hard to pin down - he varies between quite conventional conservative and wild-eyed lunatic (see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07dv4mrg2o ). It's not difficult to imagine his developing under Trump to seeking absolute power.
These physical laws operate whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not. Energy will always be conserved. A perpetual motion machine will always be impossible.
But human made laws can always be changed. They only have force to the extent that we collectively believe in them and enforce them. So when we come to questions like whether Trump will remain President for a third term, the question is less, what is the letter of the law, but more, do people believe in that law and are they prepared to enforce it on Trump?
We have already seen with Trump that the normal rules of politics do not apply to him. He has been able to say and do things that would be unthinkable for a normal politician and still retain his popularity and credibility with an election-winning proportion of the public. We do not know what the limits are to this.
What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.
Utterly disgusting behaviour.
And yes, absolutely horrendous and alarming what happened in the French case. Worth remembering that evil often wears the most ordinary of faces.
Jus solis is an antiquated idea that never took into account the ease at which people can travel for citizenship tourism when the idea was thought up.
I hope for the US’s sake it’s the former but history tells me it will be the latter.
And on Vance, while deputies do get ideas of power, I don't think he is there to take over the shop when Trump does finally retire; he's there to do what he's told.
No doubt he's fine with that. His career had probably already peaked had he not taken the post and in return for absolute obedience over the next four years, he gets to play the Actuary's Gamble, on an obese 78-year-old who has a bad diet in an incredibly demanding and stressful post. I've seen worse bets.
That said, he might also be up for a switcheroo in 2028 using the 12th/22nd Amendment loophole, again in return for some other post after resignation (or even to be reappointed VP).
But when the Don does retire properly, I'd expect his successor to either be someone from inside his own family - though the pickings there are quite thin and I expect he knows this; he's tried most of them out - or an ultra-wealthy colleague from within his movement.
“That which is pleasing to the Prince has the force of law” is maxim of Roman Law.
But Trump can’t run again so any continuity of Trump really is based on how this term goes.
It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
It is true that he's said he won't stand for a third term but then that's easy (and sensible) for him to say now.
This isn’t an abstract argument about the merits or otherwise of US citizenship laws. It’s about whether as president can take away constitutional rights without any check.
If he were to do it by the legal process for constitutional amendment, then plenty of people would be unhappy about it, but it wouldn’t undermine the basis of democracy in the US. But the chances of his succeeding in that are slim to none.
Successfully doing so by executive order - which is blatantly unconstitutional - would put democracy at risk. If successful, it would effectively mean no limits at all on presidential power.
By contrast, the 22nd Amendment only places a bar on people being *elected* for a third time (or a second, if they've served more than half of someone else's); it doesn't explicitly prevent them succeeding to a vacancy.
You're still not eligible to become president, so there's no point in being VP.
I may be wrong about this, but this is my understanding.
What we know is that the offending continued undetected for a very long period. It involved a large number of people - none of whom went to the police about it. It was only discovered rather by accident due to investigation of an unrelated offence of upskirting, and only because the main offender had kept photographic evidence incriminating himself.
The horrifying possibility is that this case might not be extreme. It could be replicated many times over, with perpetrators who are a little bit more careful about not keeping evidence of their crimes on their computer, or who don't come to the attention of the police by committing other offences.
There has to be an alternative that is seen to be better.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
That said, the 20th Amendment clearly envisages the possibility of a president or VP being elected who is not eligible to serve (or not at inauguration), which is another loophole capable of exploitation.
But the Trump lackeys on the SC only go with an originalist interpretation when it suits the Don.
* The people who worried about Vance being the real "brains" appear to have missed the real power behind the throne.
The problem of rape is bigger than the criminal justice system, because it's so big that it undermines the criminal justice system.
Could he make a case that the parents are illegal aliens. Therefore they are not subject to US jurisdiction - and have no protections as a result - but are simply automatically expelled (without die process) if apprehended. He can then further argue that the children of such individuals are not citizens
I disagree with many of the positives suggested, but this is certainly a balanced analysis.
https://www.cfr.org/article/donald-trumps-costly-legacy
The accused, who faced prison sentences of up to 20 years if found guilty, ranged in age from 25 to 72 and came from numerous walks of life – firefighter, IT worker, journalist, nurse, plumber, prison guard, and truck driver, with 41 of them being from Vaucluse.
Also from wiki:
[Vaucluse] had a population of 561,469 as of 2019.
Given the age range of the perpetrators, let's assume they come from something like 30% of the population.
So that's 41 out of about 170,000. Or 2 in every 10,000.
Now, it's still shocking, and, clearly, the opportunity brought in far more men than are likely to do something where they have to take the initiative, but it isn't quite like half the men in a village or small town.
And the outcome of the next election, assuming there is one, is hardly a foregone conclusion, too.
The voters had, in the UUP, SDLP and Alliance a range of parties that were fairly decent.
They chose SF and then, in turn the Unionists moved to the DUP.
Why?
Extremism was pampered, patted on the head. SF demanded police investigations shut down. They were. They blocked Stormont and got more concessions.
I still giggle at the people here who whined when the DUP blocked Stormont for *their* concessions.
I LOL’d at the death threats to the customs inspectors about the border. Other parties had been literally getting away with murder (87 people in a pub toilet) - why not some death threats. That’s what wins in NI, these days.
The polite, decent politicians get told to fuck off. By everyone.
The face eating leopards saw the other face eating leopards being rewarded for eating faces. So they ate some faces!
https://bsky.app/profile/davidherdson.bsky.social
In these two cases, at least some justice has been done. Convictions in fair trials, under the law.
That is how we can turn the tide.
MAGA only works when a big minority of the population backs The Leader.
Blair and his “no prosecution” letters…
For myself I would also add that a former gf once turned up late at my flat so intoxicated as to be in a comparable state to the unfortunate French lady. If I had raped her, she wouldn't have known. That I did not says nothing about my scruples. It was a completely unsexy situation. It would have been like fucking a corpse, or blow-up doll. It would also have been rape, without question. Non-consensual sex always is.
The men who did this too her deserve no sympathy. Not all men are like that, but too many are, and it's good that fewer will now be unaware of the likely consequences.
If they had we would have just witnessed a Kamala landslide.
Three members (Swati Dhingra, Dave Ramsden and Alan Taylor)
Alan Taylor !
New dove amongst the external members to replace hawk Haskil.
Reeves clearly trying to move the needle toward lower rates with his appointment.
That's the thing with peace deals: they're unfair and often the wrong people get rewarded. But you have peace, people stop being killed, and things slowly normalise. The alternative is enternal war or the annihilation of one side or the other.
Support from the Conservatives, Lib Dems.
I think one thing not mentioned explicitly by David is that a Constitutional Convention, which has not been done since 1787, can be called nationally. And that aiui once that has been called around one question (eg abortion) that Convention can then take a broader remit. So at the writing stage, fewer checks and balances operate. Ratification is still required by 3/4 of states.
I have seen reports on a long-term (ie decades) strategy amongst anti-abortion activists, including for example the Roman Catholic Right and the Federalist Society (a privately influential association of legal figures who drive constitutional 'originalism'), which in current politics is engaged alongside Trump, to use such a process to exploit control at state level. Control of the Supreme Court is one milestone on the route; if anyone is interested I may be able to find a reference.
I think the Supreme Court changes are a bit of a dead letter - that has already been bought and largely corrupted imo, for example by the many millions of donations in kind accepted and not declared by Clarence Thomas. I can see Trump himself enlarging it, but that would be a way of institutionalising his poisonous legacy for a generation.
Six out of nine SCOUTS justices are Roman Catholic, compared to one in five of the population.
And that drug dealing and criminality has been crowned in politics. That foreign donations to NI parties are awesome.
Love it all.
A piece on the BBC last week about "stealthing", which is non-consensual removal of a condom. A Love Island contestant, now aged 30, and an influencer / sex worker, did not know that this was rape.
A former Love Island contestant says it "took her breath away" to discover that someone removing a condom during sex is classified as rape.
Stealthing, as it is known, happens when someone removes a condom during consensual sex without informing the other person.
Megan Barton-Hanson says she experienced this up to six times, with a man claiming the condom had split on each occasion, leading to her having an abortion.
"I didn't know it was a crime," the 30-year-old tells the BBC.
"I just thought that's something between partners that you have to discuss with them."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6279gpde6zo
The BBC has been reporting using the term since at least 2017:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-39705734
Hawks/Consensus/Doves
Hawks: Mann - Greene - Pill
Consensus : [ Breeden / Bailey / Lombardelli]
Doves: Ramsden -Taylor- Dhingra.
He’ll spend the rest of his days behind bars, contemplating what on Earth drove him towards some of the most hideous and heinous crimes imaginable.
Well done to the prosecutors and the jury, who have had to look at videos of the offences taking place.
I have no idea how the numbers stack up, but it can happen in either direction.
But - do French operate the kind of thing we do and start offering parole after half a sentence etc etc?
To me that's the same category of argument as Reform UK suggesting that "Two Tier Kier" failed to prosecute the Manchester Airport Attackers.
It's ignoring that that is not where the power is exercised.
Jeez.
I didn’t vote for her.
We have noted here before ( @HYUFD I think?) that alongside the Right Wing Evangelical movement (which I have commented on sometimes) supporting Trump for essentially utilitarian * reasons, there is a Roman Catholic Conservative counterpart - JD Vance's current stance being an exemplar.
* Popularly self-justified by a rhetoric around "Cyrus the Great of Persia", who in the Old Testament was a gentile King who is regarded as helping the Jews. So support for for Trump is justified, despite his manifest crimes.
“So Zathras talks to dirt. Sometimes talks to walls or talks to ceilings, but dirt is closer. Dirt used to everyone walking on it. Just like Zathras, but we have come to like it. It is our role. It is our destiny in the Universe. So you see, sometimes dirt has insects in it. Zathras like insects. Not so good for conversation, but much protein for diet.”
His erratic tariff plans damaged investment.
He slowed down US support for the build-up of the Ukrainian military.
Think Roosevelt hiring Joe Kennedy to clean up Wall Street. Or Charles II hiring Henry Morgan to stop piracy.
“What’s your plan?”
“Arrest everyone in my address book”