Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Have it both ways. He's saying that he didn't want to risk the trial collapsing, but, as I said at the time, why were the terrorist charges announced before the trial? Surely they should have been kept quiet as the police and CPS don't think the murders were terrorism.
He can see which way the wind is blowing and is wanting to be seen to view it as a terrorist attack.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
The difference us that last timed ScheduleF came towards the end if his administration, and there were no lists of federal employees to be targeted. Since then, Project 2025.
I don't think those saying that Trump is too disorganised to do much appreciate that there's a set of loons now in the administration who are.
Your last point is central to everything. There is no sense in which this project is about one charismatic individual. It's about Trumpism (or whatever it shall come to be called), and it has a large body of powerful supporters, influencers and organisers. Some will believe it, some will follow the money, and certainly they will fight with each other.
I wonder (speculating) whether a sort of parallel phenomenon is Great Britain - politics, influence, assumptions - from approximately the great reform act of 1832 to 1914.
I don't know it lasted that long as a single movement, but certainly there was a marked shift towards social conservatism around 1830ish.
Joe Biden has “pre emptively” pardoned Antony Fauci, who:
1. Circumvented US law to enable dangerous gain of function virology at Wuhan - no one questions this
2 Quite likely - but we cannot be certain - therefore enabled the deaths of 20 million people
3. Instituted a cover-up of the possibility of a lab leak (thereby disguising his own involvement) - again, like point 1, this is not disputed
In comparison to the PRE EMPTIVE pardon given to fauci for all this, pardoning a few drunken MAGA rioters is small beer indeed
Yeah, right.
Or on the other hand: he was a good man trying to do a good job, who anti-vaxxers and associated low-IQ fuckwits don't like.
Do you want me to adduce all of the evidence for points 1 and 3? Because it is very readily available and so overwhelming it is beyond serious doubt
I think point 2 is beyond serious doubt but in the spirit of love and charity I will allow it as “unproven”
You have proven yourself incapable of determining the validity of 'evidence' many, many times in the past. Why should we think you've suddenly gained either intelligence or morality?
Antony Fauci, 2012:
“Fauci Argued Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research Outweighed Pandemic Risk in 2012 Paper”
These are Fauci’s words:
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.
Within the research community, many have expressed concern that important research progress could come to a halt just because of the fear that someone, somewhere, might attempt to replicate these experiments sloppily. This is a valid concern.”
He KNEW the risks. He PREDICTED IT. Yet he went ahead and funded it anyway
Firstly, that assumes it was certainly a lab leak - and one from an engineered virus. I know you've 100% convinced that's the truth, but for anyone sane there's more than a little doubt there.
Secondly, you ignore what he's saying: that the benefits of such research outweighed the risks. That may have been a wise call at the time, and (whispers quietly) may even be a correct call now, with care. It is about balancing risks. And your argument is used by anti-vaxxers to stop vaccine development.
You are a dangerous fool on this matter. We should tighten up restrictions on labs *and* stop anything like wet markets. Your onanistic belief that you are right will lead to disaster in the future.
According to a New Scientist article on the topic a few weeks ago, general scientific opinion remains that the cause of Covid-19 is very unlikely to have been a lab leak, but not impossible.
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff
However I’m not going to defend him on this. The first salute might have been some weird star trek geek thing but he’s very smart and you can see on his face he kinda realises what he’s doing and the second was therefore deliberate. To enrage lefties, probably
Musk has driven forward space travel and electric vehicles; towering achievements, in spite of manifest and serious personality issues.
Trump's given him what he wants - the green light for Mars. Musk should go away and get on with that project.
I agree with that; the role of court jester doesn't suit him; it's beneath him.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organisation
Ah. That's the first surprise. Damn. I worked with the WHO once, albeit briefly and with a peripheral organisations. It was one of the few moments in my life when what I did mattered on a global scale. Due to financial pressures I had to go work in the private sector instead, a source of some regret.
WHO is a horrifically political and corrupted organisation.
Why didn’t they provide Taiwan with any assistance or guidance on the spread of the COVID pandemic?
Also why did they swallow Chinese bullshit about the origins of COVID?
Why did they give it a neutral name, while happily referring for decades to German measles and Spanish influenza, amongst others?
And why did they back lockdowns and travel restrictions when China did, despite clearly thinking before the pandemic that both were pointless and counterproductive?
The WHO has long been more obsessed about lifestyle issues than anything practical.
Trump is right on this
He is wrong.
The WHO will have saved millions of lives through its various projects and schemes - the Smallpox eradication programme alone (launched in the late 50s) will have saved millions.
Trump has put an anti-vaxxer at the heart of his government, involved with medicine.
Is the WHO perfect? No. Would the world be better if they did not exist? Hell, no.
No, he is right.
The WHO may have been fit for purpose once but that was a long whole ago. The late fifties and sixties fine, but they need reform and if the Trumpdozer's actions help bring that about all well and good.
I will judge RFK JR by what he does as well.
I judge RFK by what he does - he is a grifting anti-vaxxer who sells a whole pile of anti-science garbage.
I judge Trump by what he does - he is a proven criminal, cheat and fraudster. And far more….
Both are occasionally right - Trump on European rearmament, RFK on some food standards.
But in both cases that is a tiny, tiny portion of their portfolios. Which are otherwise uniformly shit.
RFK Junior's grifting has already killed lots of people. Here's a summary of just part of it in a well-known left-wing rag:
Andrew Wakefield with a bigger grift, essentially.
It's odd how @Sandpit ignores this whilst castigating the WHO...
It’s possible to hold two positions at one time.
RFK is a threat to global health. His comments on polio have caused extraordinary anger in the industry
The WHO is an organisation that China has successfully corrupted and, as a result, has lost sight of its purpose and mission. It plays politics where it shouldn’t.
Can you give some specific examples of WHO’s errors? I’m not saying the organisation is perfect, just wondering what in particular concerns you.
The Greens and LDs won't waste resources at Runcorn.
The Tories need to throw everything at it.
So my feeling is it's not a slam dunk for Reform; Labour doesn't need to defend its left wing; but Reform need to fight it out with the Tories.
10/11 are unattractive odds on Reform.
Agree that the Greens and LDs won't waste resources and both those odds are far too short. I would put them both at 100/1. Often in these scenarios the Greens will beat the LDs for 4th place.
I think Reform are slightly stronger favourites than shown.
I think the Tories will come a bad third, but I am not so confident about that. I think they will come third, but whether very badly or not I am not so confident.
Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ? (See the three referrals to Prevent.)
One thing Trump's executive orders do U.S. surrender a huge amount of influence to an authoritarian dictatorship.
..During the regular daily foreign ministry briefing, spokesperson Guo Jiakun said China is concerned at Trump’s announcement the US is again withdrawing from the Paris climate deal. Reuters quotes the official saying China is actively responding to climate change and will jointly promote global green and low-carbon transition.
The spokesperson also said that the World Health Organization should only be strengthened, not weakened. He said China would continue to support it in fulfilling its responsibilities. ..
So China are now the good guys and the USA are the villain of the piece.....
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
I think Dunblane was terrorism. Hungerford, Cumbria and Plymouth, probably not.
The police and, later, CPS have got this badly wrong. The police should have disclosed enough information (i.e. "we think he wanted to do this to his school a week earlier and was stopped") to make it clear they didn't think he was specifically targeting girls. And the CPS should not have charged him with terrorist offences until after the murder and attempted murder cases were tried.
Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ? (See the three referrals to Prevent.)
And then long grass it with an enquiry.
It’s more than that. Other PB-ers are correct. This is a clear and present danger to his job. Did he lie about this, to the public? At least by omission or misdirection? He looks extremely shifty under questioning and gives weak answers
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
David Copeland was a lone wolf. And he was a terrorist.
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff
However I’m not going to defend him on this. The first salute might have been some weird star trek geek thing but he’s very smart and you can see on his face he kinda realises what he’s doing and the second was therefore deliberate. To enrage lefties, probably
Musk has driven forward space travel and electric vehicles; towering achievements, in spite of manifest and serious personality issues.
Trump's given him what he wants - the green light for Mars. Musk should go away and get on with that project.
I agree with that; the role of court jester doesn't suit him; it's beneath him.
Thought the job of the court jester was a sort of living memento mori. Definitely not a jester then.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organisation
Ah. That's the first surprise. Damn. I worked with the WHO once, albeit briefly and with a peripheral organisations. It was one of the few moments in my life when what I did mattered on a global scale. Due to financial pressures I had to go work in the private sector instead, a source of some regret.
WHO is a horrifically political and corrupted organisation.
Why didn’t they provide Taiwan with any assistance or guidance on the spread of the COVID pandemic?
Also why did they swallow Chinese bullshit about the origins of COVID?
Why did they give it a neutral name, while happily referring for decades to German measles and Spanish influenza, amongst others?
And why did they back lockdowns and travel restrictions when China did, despite clearly thinking before the pandemic that both were pointless and counterproductive?
The WHO has long been more obsessed about lifestyle issues than anything practical.
Trump is right on this
He is wrong.
The WHO will have saved millions of lives through its various projects and schemes - the Smallpox eradication programme alone (launched in the late 50s) will have saved millions.
Trump has put an anti-vaxxer at the heart of his government, involved with medicine.
Is the WHO perfect? No. Would the world be better if they did not exist? Hell, no.
No, he is right.
The WHO may have been fit for purpose once but that was a long whole ago. The late fifties and sixties fine, but they need reform and if the Trumpdozer's actions help bring that about all well and good.
I will judge RFK JR by what he does as well.
I judge RFK by what he does - he is a grifting anti-vaxxer who sells a whole pile of anti-science garbage.
I judge Trump by what he does - he is a proven criminal, cheat and fraudster. And far more….
Both are occasionally right - Trump on European rearmament, RFK on some food standards.
But in both cases that is a tiny, tiny portion of their portfolios. Which are otherwise uniformly shit.
RFK Junior's grifting has already killed lots of people. Here's a summary of just part of it in a well-known left-wing rag:
Andrew Wakefield with a bigger grift, essentially.
It's odd how @Sandpit ignores this whilst castigating the WHO...
It’s possible to hold two positions at one time.
RFK is a threat to global health. His comments on polio have caused extraordinary anger in the industry
The WHO is an organisation that China has successfully corrupted and, as a result, has lost sight of its purpose and mission. It plays politics where it shouldn’t.
Can you give some specific examples of WHO’s errors? I’m not saying the organisation is perfect, just wondering what in particular concerns you.
Taiwan
Absolutely; that was disgraceful. Ironically, Taiwan's COVID response was probably the best in the world.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has a much wider definition:
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
One thing Trump's executive orders do U.S. surrender a huge amount of influence to an authoritarian dictatorship.
..During the regular daily foreign ministry briefing, spokesperson Guo Jiakun said China is concerned at Trump’s announcement the US is again withdrawing from the Paris climate deal. Reuters quotes the official saying China is actively responding to climate change and will jointly promote global green and low-carbon transition.
The spokesperson also said that the World Health Organization should only be strengthened, not weakened. He said China would continue to support it in fulfilling its responsibilities. ..
So China are now the good guys and the USA are the villain of the piece.....
That's how China will present it, certainly. And Trump has greatly strengthened their propaganda.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
This speech and presser has, I suspect, made everything a whole lot worse for Starmer. He’s just really shit at politics and is very bad at handling questions - he either looks angry or evasive
It’s the prosecutor in him. He’s used to asking the questions
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff
However I’m not going to defend him on this. The first salute might have been some weird star trek geek thing but he’s very smart and you can see on his face he kinda realises what he’s doing and the second was therefore deliberate. To enrage lefties, probably
Yeah, although to call his achievements "titanic" rather overlooks the manifestly unethical behaviour he seems to have used in order to take control of these assets from the real founders.
"Behind every great fortune, there lies a great crime".
Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ? (See the three referrals to Prevent.)
And then long grass it with an enquiry.
It’s more than that. Other PB-ers are correct. This is a clear and present danger to his job. Did he lie about this, to the public? At least by omission or misdirection? He looks extremely shifty under questioning and gives weak answers
He's probably found enough wiggle room. It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own. The Fukkers will make hay.
.."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place. And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view. Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."
This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
Russia wants a deal; Putin has stated his starting position many times.
It is essentially a Ukrainian surrender, with Russia gaining territory it does not hold, e.g. all of Kherson.
He said Russia should “make” a deal. That implies a demand for compromise
Interview on R4 this morning with some Trump insider - ex military or foreign service - seen a lot of the plans etc. was fairly sane.
He claimed that Trump will tell Putin “stop or I give Ukraine everything they want” and will tell Zelensky “you haven’t done all you can and should have thrown in the younger men who are fitter and stronger and would massively boost numbers so if you can’t be bothered to call all resources to the colours then why should we make more effort”.
He didn’t seem like a nut, seemed well informed on international relations and pretty balanced so if he does know what will he said then who knows how that would work out.
Look, some of those younger men might have bone spurs.
I think, from previous evidence, that Trump sees “regional wars” as bad things. Somalia, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.
He wants to sell “I am not a neo-con”.
For Ukraine, he wants to act as peacemaker.
- he has an aversion to US peacekeepers - He likes the idea of he Europeans paying for whatever happens
So I could see a pitch of ceasefire in place, European peacekeepers, Ukraine not joint NATO or EU.
The last is because Ukraine joining either is probably existential to Putin - window time for him.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The point is that there is no very clear definition; it's always been a contested question. The only objective test is the legal definition - which of course varies between countries, and over time - and which in this case doesn't add much clarity either.
Starmer is in trouble because this looks like a cover up of the cover up. There are way too many inconsistencies in what he’s claiming he did and wanted, and what actually happened - from the murder onwards
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
Well at least that will reduce the Reform vote too.....
Russia wants a deal; Putin has stated his starting position many times.
It is essentially a Ukrainian surrender, with Russia gaining territory it does not hold, e.g. all of Kherson.
He said Russia should “make” a deal. That implies a demand for compromise
Interview on R4 this morning with some Trump insider - ex military or foreign service - seen a lot of the plans etc. was fairly sane.
He claimed that Trump will tell Putin “stop or I give Ukraine everything they want” and will tell Zelensky “you haven’t done all you can and should have thrown in the younger men who are fitter and stronger and would massively boost numbers so if you can’t be bothered to call all resources to the colours then why should we make more effort”.
He didn’t seem like a nut, seemed well informed on international relations and pretty balanced so if he does know what will he said then who knows how that would work out.
Look, some of those younger men might have bone spurs.
I think, from previous evidence, that Trump sees “regional wars” as bad things. Somalia, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.
He wants to sell “I am not a neo-con”.
For Ukraine, he wants to act as peacemaker.
- he has an aversion to US peacekeepers - He likes the idea of he Europeans paying for whatever happens
So I could see a pitch of ceasefire in place, European peacekeepers, Ukraine not joint NATO or EU.
The last is because Ukraine joining either is probably existential to Putin - window time for him.
Long term, not joining NATO is almost certainly existential to Ukraine.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff
However I’m not going to defend him on this. The first salute might have been some weird star trek geek thing but he’s very smart and you can see on his face he kinda realises what he’s doing and the second was therefore deliberate. To enrage lefties, probably
Musk has driven forward space travel and electric vehicles; towering achievements, in spite of manifest and serious personality issues.
Trump's given him what he wants - the green light for Mars. Musk should go away and get on with that project.
I agree with that; the role of court jester doesn't suit him; it's beneath him.
He’s a narcissist who craves the attention. Being the richest man in the world & running two of the most successful engineering companies ever isn’t enough for him - because nothing will ever be enough.
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff
Titanic, thought to be "unsinkable", sank on her maiden voyage...
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ? (See the three referrals to Prevent.)
And then long grass it with an enquiry.
It’s more than that. Other PB-ers are correct. This is a clear and present danger to his job. Did he lie about this, to the public? At least by omission or misdirection? He looks extremely shifty under questioning and gives weak answers
He's probably found enough wiggle room. It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own. The Fukkers will make hay.
.."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place. And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view. Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."
This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
I was musing on this topic as I drove to work this morning. I think some/a lot of the anger around Southport (beyond just the senselessness and horror) is the rush to say that 'its not terrorism', when later there are clear links to terrorism. The danger is that we are at the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Clearly the legal professions stick to the idea that the motivation must be present for such an act to be terrorism and so if there is no clear evidence of motivation then ergo its not terrorism. But to the lay person an attack such as this, targeting young girls doing things that in certain strongly religious societies (e.g. Afghanistan) are banned, you can see why the question is asked.
JJ raises an interesting point with comparisons to other cases, notably cases of white British males going on the rampage. Did people rush to judgement about the Southport killer because of the target? If it had been an attack at his school (in good 'ol American style) would terrorism have been invoked? I think probably less likely.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has a much wider definition:
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
That begs the question - why on earth were the far-right rioters from last year not charged as terrorists? Seems to fit perfectly.
Charlie Bentley-Astor @astor_charlie Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.
Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.
I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.
Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!
The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.
Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Like the immigration crack down, he’s trying to sell “I’m on the side of the ordinary person”
I think the real problem with Southport will turn out to be another classic of the Process Stare - SEP. Someone Else’s problem.
The attacker was referred to Prevent, several times. I will bet that they assessed him as a violent nutter *without a specific political/religious motivation*. So outside their remit. File closed. Lunch anyone?
Since mental health services are in a state, the file went at the bottom of a big, big stack, there.
In the responses to Starmer’s Blob stuff, on Reddit, it was interesting to see actual civil servants working through the list of examples - “not our remit, not our remit….”
Starmer is in trouble because this looks like a cover up of the cover up. There are way too many inconsistencies in what he’s claiming he did and wanted, and what actually happened - from the murder onwards
It also puts the banned subject back into focus because Labour have very quickly called a public inquiry for this but they refuse to do it for that.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
Trends can always reverse, of course, and government support is still important in large scale infrastructure investment like the electrification of home energy. But it does seem that most decarbonisation technology is on a journey towards being more economically viable than the alternative anyway.
This backlash was always going to happen, as backlashes have happened whenever a new technology comes along to replace the old.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
I would like to think so, and I know RCS1000 keeps making the point, but I'm not so sure. The world is an energy-hungry place, which means that demand will keep on increasing to match supply. I think this will keep the price of energy sufficiently high for the extraction of fossil fuels to remain economically viable for quite a while yet in the absence of environmental penalties.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
I've just posted why I think people were convinced of the terrorist motive - the target and the repression of women in Afghanistan.
At heart I tend to think of anyone who kills in the name of terrorism as mentally ill. But then I am not a repressed Gazan teenager brought up on tales of evil Israelis, or a Frenchman living under Nazi control, or any number of other things.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The reason school shooters are not described as terrorists, generally, is that there is no discernible ideology or goal.
The manifestos that some have created make clear that the shooters themselves have little clear idea of why they are doing it. Beyond a nihilistic rage at not being the In Group.
Charlie Bentley-Astor @astor_charlie Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.
Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.
I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.
Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!
The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.
Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
I am no expert on legal matters. It seems we have very restrictive reporting laws once charges have been made to preserve the sanctity of the trial process. I can respect that. But is there a case that the restrictions are too severe? Can a jury ever be found in a case like this that knows nothing of the case (and is that even the requirement?)
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
Charlie Bentley-Astor @astor_charlie Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.
Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.
I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.
Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!
The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.
Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
There's already a strict test on whether a defendant's previous convictions are mentioned in court. Spreading rumours of what a defendant may or may not have done may influence the jury's deliberation on the case before them.
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
Watch the whole thing. He came on jumping around like a toddler. Then pulled a face and thumped the lectern with both hands saying this is what victory tastes like. Then the Nurenberg bit of the rally. Then more performative acting showing what inserting a flag into Mars would be like.
The salutes were only one part of the show of madness
What drug would make you act like that? I'm not a drug expert.
Here is one for @leon and his take on conspiracy theory:
Someone sane who I am in a Whatsapp group with reported that they found this morning they were 'following' Trump on Facebook and that was news to them. Now in the past both myself and my wife have found we have unintentionally been following someone or something in Facebook and I am sure that is down to fat fingers so I dismissed this, particularly as in our cases it was completely innocuous. It has happened at least half a dozen times for both of us and often the following was set up months prior to our discovery.
Anyway since then there are lots and lots of reports of this happening today. Why? It could be lots of fat fingers over time and the people unaware of it until today when the profile picture changed and they all got notified.
Or is it something spooky? What do you think @leon? You always gone down the spooky line.
I'm going for it being innocuous and that they were unintentionally following him through fat fingers over a number of years and all found out today when the profile changed.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
Absolute bullshit
There is plentiful evidence this guy might be a radicalised Islamist type. Allegations he shouted Allahu Akhbar at the scene. Owning Al qaeda manuals. Apparently he is now practising Islam in. Prison. He targeted western girls at a taylor swift party - known Islamist targets. Referred to prevent 3 times. And so on
We can’t know for sure but then the trial was meant to provide that proof. But now there won’t be a trial
Instead we have a public inquiry which will last 83 years and make sure anyone that cares is dead by the time it finishes. Neat
On the Nazi salute furore. If it was intended to be a Nazi salute it wasn’t a very good one. He screwed it up - twice.
Someone said it was an ultra salute - yeah, much closer to what he did. The nazis co-opted old fashioned Roman salutes when seeing what the Italian fascists were doing. As the Ultras at various football clubs still do. Much closer to one of those.
Look, if he’d clicked his heels together and rigidly stood as shooting the arm up at 45 degrees then maybe. But he didn’t. The chest thump then the arm out and leaning at a weird angle like half a dab? You ever seen footage of Nazis doing that?
He’s an arsehole. But he wasn’t doing a Nazi salute.
No he wasn’t. It’s bizarre people think he has but after the return of Trump people have various stages on the grief cycle. They’ll get to acceptance eventually
Most optimistic post of the day. Certain political types wallow in being stuck at anger.
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
Watch the whole thing. He came on jumping around like a toddler. Then pulled a face and thumped the lectern with both hands saying this is what victory tastes like. Then the Nurenberg bit of the rally. Then more performative acting showing what inserting a flag into Mars would be like.
The salutes were only one part of the show of madness
What drug would make you act like that? I'm not a drug expert.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has a much wider definition:
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
That's not actually a particularly wide provision. It says that for something to be terrorism it has to meet 2 requirements:
1. It must fit within "subsection 2" (i.e. it must involve serious violence, damage to property, endanger life etc), AND 2. It must be designed to influence government/org or intimidate the public expressly for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause
With a sweep-up at the end that also bundles in anything involving guns or bombs.
Pretty much what we all thought terrorism was. It requires a cause, otherwise it's something else (mass murder, serial killing, stalking, organised crime etc).
If what Elon did wasn’t a Nazi salute then do it tomorrow at work.
“My heart goes out to you” could be the new get out of jail free preamble.
It still seems to me that he wasn’t intending a Nazi salute at the time but doesn’t care if that’s how it looked.
It’s the firming up of his jowls and the aggressive bite of the lower lip as if Musk was pushing out a turd or stamping on a cockroach that makes me unconvinced he was indulging in a sugary giving out of his heart. In any case he’s probably getting a lot of adolescent pleasure from people thinking it was a Nazi salute.
Watch the whole thing. He came on jumping around like a toddler. Then pulled a face and thumped the lectern with both hands saying this is what victory tastes like. Then the Nurenberg bit of the rally. Then more performative acting showing what inserting a flag into Mars would be like.
The salutes were only one part of the show of madness
What drug would make you act like that? I'm not a drug expert.
Charlie Bentley-Astor @astor_charlie Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.
Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.
I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.
Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!
The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.
Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
There's already a strict test on whether a defendant's previous convictions are mentioned in court. Spreading rumours of what a defendant may or may not have done may influence the jury's deliberation on the case before them.
But he wouldn't have a conviction for attempting to attack his school.
Charlie Bentley-Astor @astor_charlie His father rang the Police and reported Rudakubana missing - that he left in a taxi and that he "thought" his son was heading to his old school.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
I would like to think so, and I know RCS1000 keeps making the point, but I'm not so sure. The world is an energy-hungry place, which means that demand will keep on increasing to match supply. I think this will keep the price of energy sufficiently high for the extraction of fossil fuels to remain economically viable for quite a while yet in the absence of environmental penalties.
Solar is very cheap.
Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.
We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.
If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
There is some evidence that he may have been aiming for the school and was stopped.
Starmer arguing that Southport ought to be considered a terrorist attack. The police and CPS might not thank him for that.
I'm sure the weekend papers will have a nice leak about what he was told and when - and we can see if that matches up with his public statements.
What is he trying to do with this speech??!
Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ? (See the three referrals to Prevent.)
And then long grass it with an enquiry.
It’s more than that. Other PB-ers are correct. This is a clear and present danger to his job. Did he lie about this, to the public? At least by omission or misdirection? He looks extremely shifty under questioning and gives weak answers
He's probably found enough wiggle room. It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own. The Fukkers will make hay.
.."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place. And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view. Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."
This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
I think for it usefully to be termed terrorism rather than other forms of violence, there needs to be a conspiracy or a degree of organisation behind it. If for example the perpetrator had been radicalised on social media that could be terrorism.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
Also why only release pics of him age 9 and we only get the evil mugshot after the trial? How can it possibly prejudice a trial for us to see his face as he is now rather than as a choirboy? It’s just a face
That looks like obvious manipulation of public opinion.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
It looks like he didn't attack his old school because his Dad was concerned enough to report him going there to the Police who intercepted him and just returned him home. That is certainly what is being reported.
Charlie Bentley-Astor @astor_charlie Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.
Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.
I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.
Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!
The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.
Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
There's already a strict test on whether a defendant's previous convictions are mentioned in court. Spreading rumours of what a defendant may or may not have done may influence the jury's deliberation on the case before them.
But he wouldn't have a conviction for attempting to attack his school.
Blame the CPS for not pressing charges on that one.
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
I would like to think so, and I know RCS1000 keeps making the point, but I'm not so sure. The world is an energy-hungry place, which means that demand will keep on increasing to match supply. I think this will keep the price of energy sufficiently high for the extraction of fossil fuels to remain economically viable for quite a while yet in the absence of environmental penalties.
Solar is very cheap.
Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.
We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.
If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
Though interestingly the engineer who came to quote for panels at our French place told me he didn't think batteries would be economic for us quite yet and that selling excess power would be better in the short term. I think because it's a second home so we are not there every day to make use of the daily cycle of discharge and recharge. He predicted those economics would change within about 5 years.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Both Oklahoma City and the Unabomber were terrorism. Because it was use of violence in political causes - which is the definition usually used.
The number of people involved is irrelevant.
A counter example is the Las Vegas shooter - mass violence *without* a cause. So that’s not terrorism.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Final thought while living through a decidedly average New Zealand summer. There’s a strong likelihood of snow in New Orleans while the UK may have strong winter storms with which to contend.
When the weather acts counter intuitively to what we are being told about the climate, trying to push the climate argument becomes harder.
It will take a series of major or catastrophic events probably in the richest parts of the Northern Hemisphere before the terms of the debate change significantly at which point, pace immigration, the demand for radical action will be exponential and unstoppable.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
There is some evidence that he may have been aiming for the school and was stopped.
A while back I read something stating that many of these people have no set agenda when they perform the act: often it is just a general rage at the world that can manifest itself in many ways. In some cases at initial questioning they are vague about their motivations, but as time goes on they settle on something more firm.
I can sort-of believe that, having seen a couple of the rambling and disjointed 'manifestos' that have been written prior to an attack. They're not exactly "What Is to Be Done?"
Listening to Starmer this morning, he admitted he was kept informed throughout and knew all the details
I do not understand why he announced this at 8.30 before Cooper presents it to the HOC
He looked very defensive, and not sure it was the most sensible decision to discuss it this morning
I think it was a mistake for him to do it. Cooper is an assured speaker, and she has cultivated an image of unfussily getting things done. She, like Ed Miliband (and unlike several other cabinet ministers), demonstrates the advantage of having been in government before and knowing how the levers of power work.
She also tends to limit her speeches to the commons. Starmer going out there and "explaining" just stokes the conspiracy fires.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Because people are asking questions like: why didn't you call it terrorism early on?
I'm unsure it does make much of a practical difference in this case.
IMV it matters much more when there are groups or individuals who might be encouraged to perform similar heinous acts.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
There is some evidence that he may have been aiming for the school and was stopped.
That was a week before. (see my previous post)
The dance class he attacked was in back street. He didn't stumble across that. Quite how fussy he was about his target, we don't know, but he knew what he was attacking when left his house that morning.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Some useful ambiguity maybe gets Starmer off a career-ending hook
The Greens and LDs won't waste resources at Runcorn.
The Tories need to throw everything at it.
So my feeling is it's not a slam dunk for Reform; Labour doesn't need to defend its left wing; but Reform need to fight it out with the Tories.
10/11 are unattractive odds on Reform.
Agree that the Greens and LDs won't waste resources and both those odds are far too short. I would put them both at 100/1. Often in these scenarios the Greens will beat the LDs for 4th place.
I think Reform are slightly stronger favourites than shown.
I think the Tories will come a bad third, but I am not so confident about that. I think they will come third, but whether very badly or not I am not so confident.
So there's no real edge on Reform: the odds for them are about right.
I'd put them at say 12/10 as I do think the Tories need to go for this; they can't be passive and let Reform become the default right-wing choice.
So the Tories may do enough to let Labour in: vote Tory, get Labour.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Different response, politically, socially and legally.
Final thought while living through a decidedly average New Zealand summer. There’s a strong likelihood of snow in New Orleans while the UK may have strong winter storms with which to contend.
When the weather acts counter intuitively to what we are being told about the climate, trying to push the climate argument becomes harder.
It will take a series of major or catastrophic events probably in the richest parts of the Northern Hemisphere before the terms of the debate change significantly at which point, pace immigration, the demand for radical action will be exponential and unstoppable.
Even those catastrophic events won't persuade people it's happening. It's the slow creep of climate change that makes it so dangerous.
Look at the response people got for pointing out that climate change would make wildfires in California more likely, even as temperatures in the state have increased by 1.5c since the 70s. They've been setting record high and record low precipitation, and the snowpack has reduced significantly so they have lost that moderator.
The "just weather" brigade will still be tweeting furiously even as their houses burn down.
How long will it be before Farage, Truss or some other home grown right winger promises to take back Suez?
NF doesn't need to. The Fukkers' path to power is apparent and very simple:
Zero immigration Hydrocarbon based energy No more woke
Anybody thinking that a political commitment has to be somehow coupled to a capacity to deliver it is guilty of pure 22/06/16 thinking.
Not without an economic offer it won't.
What you lay out will scoop dozens of seats but it's not enough to put him into power.
Isn't the economic offer tied to the first two. - We have a crisis in housing and public services in no small part because we are letting in an extra 1% population a year. Fixing this migration will go a long way to fix these issues. - Net Zero is a state mandated act of economic self harm. Switching to "drill baby drill" in the North Sea instead of spending billions on Carbon Capture will work wonders for the treasury.
The Greens and LDs won't waste resources at Runcorn.
The Tories need to throw everything at it.
So my feeling is it's not a slam dunk for Reform; Labour doesn't need to defend its left wing; but Reform need to fight it out with the Tories.
10/11 are unattractive odds on Reform.
Agree that the Greens and LDs won't waste resources and both those odds are far too short. I would put them both at 100/1. Often in these scenarios the Greens will beat the LDs for 4th place.
I think Reform are slightly stronger favourites than shown.
I think the Tories will come a bad third, but I am not so confident about that. I think they will come third, but whether very badly or not I am not so confident.
So there's no real edge on Reform: the odds for them are about right.
I'd put them at say 12/10 as I do think the Tories need to go for this; they can't be passive and let Reform become the default right-wing choice.
So the Tories may do enough to let Labour in: vote Tory, get Labour.
I agree the Tories need to go for it, so this is a nightmare by election for them. Their one hope is to rely on Reform's lack of grass root campaigning skills, but even saying that Reform are learning. They produce good leaflets and a decent poster war would be enough to outweigh the Tories skill on GOTV. So for me it is definitely a Lab/Reform battle.
Someone mentioned Tories best hope was Hampstead (that is assuming there is a by election there, which I wouldn't bet on). If there is a Hampstead by election the LDs I anticipate would really go for it.
I'd ordinarily take the line that Tulip Siddiq is not responsible for her aunt's misdeeds. But she has certainly not disassociated herself away from her aunt and her wider family.
Final thought while living through a decidedly average New Zealand summer. There’s a strong likelihood of snow in New Orleans while the UK may have strong winter storms with which to contend.
When the weather acts counter intuitively to what we are being told about the climate, trying to push the climate argument becomes harder.
It will take a series of major or catastrophic events probably in the richest parts of the Northern Hemisphere before the terms of the debate change significantly at which point, pace immigration, the demand for radical action will be exponential and unstoppable.
Even those catastrophic events won't persuade people it's happening. It's the slow creep of climate change that makes it so dangerous.
Look at the response people got for pointing out that climate change would make wildfires in California more likely, even as temperatures in the state have increased by 1.5c since the 70s. The "just weather" brigade will still be tweeting furiously even as their houses burn down.
Indeed look at Australia, which is on the front line yet one of the most climate sceptic countries in the West.
I think these debates go in cycles. I spent vast amounts of time and energy arguing with people online around 2007-2014 about global warming. That was the peak of well funded and organised scepticism, guided by its high priest Anthony Watts on his eponymous website.
Since then opinion shifted very definitely away from denialism to an acceptance of the basic science and the debate moved on to policy rather than “is it happening” which is where it still was a decade ago. Now we are in a reactionary phase again. It remains to be seen if it goes all the way back to outright denialism or remains on the policy level.
One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning. It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour. Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.
One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning. It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour. Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.
If he didn't know he was carrying a knife, then how did the father know his son was intent on villainy?
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Different response, politically, socially and legally.
See the issue of Prevent involvement.
So to determine whether a particular event should be labelled terrorism one could ask whether potential Prevent involvement is relevant to that event?
The main social response is to the event itself, not its label.
One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning. It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour. Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.
If he didn't know he was carrying a knife, then how did the father know his son was intent on villainy?
I'd say the value is with Reform. Conservatives have to work hard on it, can't just write it off, have to make it respectable. Big chance for LD or Green, probably Green, to take Labour votes. It'd be a thankless task, but they do need to try to be an alternative.
Starmer surely can't go on having bad days like this. But he will. Confirms he knew all along.
Employment down by nearly 80k straight after budget, it's only heading one way.
Tulip Siddiq scandal is going to roll and roll because he doesn't have control on it and it will roll him up too. Just depends how tightly.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Different response, politically, socially and legally.
See the issue of Prevent involvement.
So to determine whether a particular event should be labelled terrorism one could ask whether potential Prevent involvement is relevant to that event?
The main social response is to the event itself, not its label.
We (elements of the right, particularly) have a bit too much of an obsession with the terrorism/not terrorism thing. It really only matters for how to prevent future similar attacks, in understanding what caused the attacker to do it - i.e. do we need to combat radicalisation to a cause by whatever means or do we need to invest more in mental health services and monitoring/interventions for those deemed a risk (the latter also applies to terrorism, of course).
Some elements on the right care about it because it helps determine whether ethnic group and ancestry or religion are in any way relevant.
One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning. It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour. Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.
If he didn't know he was carrying a knife, then how did the father know his son was intent on villainy?
Different mornings.
So was Rudakabana carrying a knife the morning he went to the school and was stopped by the coppers? If he wasm why wasn't he banged up then?
If he wasn't why did the father and the coppers stop him? Presumably he must have been making violent verbal threats against the school? But then again, if he was doing thar, why wasn't he arrested?
And who would be the recipients of these reparations and manage them.
Organisations like Oxfam, of course. Organisations interested in managing problems, do they ever solve any ? If they did their raison d'etre disappears.
Britain should pay reparations to India, an Oxfam International report has suggested.
It argued that former colonial powers should pay reparations to former colonies to compensate for the transfer of wealth it claims took place under imperial rule.
It cited analysis that showed that between 1765 and 1900, Britain extracted $64.82 trillion (£52.58 trillion) from India.
“The cost of reparations should be borne by the richest, who benefited the most from colonialism.”
It is the first time the charity has called for such a move.
The report proposed that Western countries commit to paying former colonies a minimum of $5 trillion (£4 trillion) annually in reparations and “climate debt” – the amount of money Western countries are said to owe poorer ones to account for the costs of climate change.
The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
I would like to think so, and I know RCS1000 keeps making the point, but I'm not so sure. The world is an energy-hungry place, which means that demand will keep on increasing to match supply. I think this will keep the price of energy sufficiently high for the extraction of fossil fuels to remain economically viable for quite a while yet in the absence of environmental penalties.
Solar is very cheap.
Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.
We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.
If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
Tesla are well into this market. A 13KwH battery will just about cover daily domestic needs and if you play the tariffs, can reduce your costs by 2/3rds. Variable for payback will be whether future tariffs change.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organisation
Ah. That's the first surprise. Damn. I worked with the WHO once, albeit briefly and with a peripheral organisations. It was one of the few moments in my life when what I did mattered on a global scale. Due to financial pressures I had to go work in the private sector instead, a source of some regret.
WHO is a horrifically political and corrupted organisation.
Why didn’t they provide Taiwan with any assistance or guidance on the spread of the COVID pandemic?
Also why did they swallow Chinese bullshit about the origins of COVID?
Why did they give it a neutral name, while happily referring for decades to German measles and Spanish influenza, amongst others?
And why did they back lockdowns and travel restrictions when China did, despite clearly thinking before the pandemic that both were pointless and counterproductive?
The WHO has long been more obsessed about lifestyle issues than anything practical.
Trump is right on this
He is wrong.
The WHO will have saved millions of lives through its various projects and schemes - the Smallpox eradication programme alone (launched in the late 50s) will have saved millions.
Trump has put an anti-vaxxer at the heart of his government, involved with medicine.
Is the WHO perfect? No. Would the world be better if they did not exist? Hell, no.
No, he is right.
The WHO may have been fit for purpose once but that was a long whole ago. The late fifties and sixties fine, but they need reform and if the Trumpdozer's actions help bring that about all well and good.
I will judge RFK JR by what he does as well.
I judge RFK by what he does - he is a grifting anti-vaxxer who sells a whole pile of anti-science garbage.
I judge Trump by what he does - he is a proven criminal, cheat and fraudster. And far more….
Both are occasionally right - Trump on European rearmament, RFK on some food standards.
But in both cases that is a tiny, tiny portion of their portfolios. Which are otherwise uniformly shit.
RFK Junior's grifting has already killed lots of people. Here's a summary of just part of it in a well-known left-wing rag:
Andrew Wakefield with a bigger grift, essentially.
It's odd how @Sandpit ignores this whilst castigating the WHO...
It’s possible to hold two positions at one time.
RFK is a threat to global health. His comments on polio have caused extraordinary anger in the industry
The WHO is an organisation that China has successfully corrupted and, as a result, has lost sight of its purpose and mission. It plays politics where it shouldn’t.
Can you give some specific examples of WHO’s errors? I’m not saying the organisation is perfect, just wondering what in particular concerns you.
Taiwan
OK. I agree that Taiwan's exclusion is a bad thing. I also understand that WHO, like all big international organisations, is more about compromise than confrontation. In order to do things on a global scale, it goes along with the big powers and the international order.
You accuse it of playing politics, but it's doing the exact opposite of that. It's avoiding politics and goes along with the fiction that there is one China, as all UN bodies do. I think the world would be a better place if Taiwan had greater international recognition, but it's not the job of the WHO to solve that. Could it do more to involve Taiwan in WHO activity? Probably.
If you are looking for a conspiracy you are always going to find a conspiracy. However, Stephen Bush is well worth reading in the FT today.
Although Rudakubana has pleaded guilty to possessing Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, a terrorist how-to-guide, he appears to have been interested in it for its methods rather than its motive. Ursula Doyle, the prosecutor, described him as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”. One reason why Rudakubana was not picked up when he should have been is that he did not fit neatly into any of the usual boxes.
Keir Starmer is right this morning to say that the answer to this question is to expand the definition of terror. At no point has Rudakubana’s case been treated as “terror-related” precisely because of the absence of a clear underlying ideology. That exposes a flaw in how we think about terror and how we identify threats in a changing world.
If you are looking for a conspiracy you are always going to find a conspiracy. However, Stephen Bush is well worth reading in the FT today.
Although Rudakubana has pleaded guilty to possessing Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, a terrorist how-to-guide, he appears to have been interested in it for its methods rather than its motive. Ursula Doyle, the prosecutor, described him as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”. One reason why Rudakubana was not picked up when he should have been is that he did not fit neatly into any of the usual boxes.
Keir Starmer is right this morning to say that the answer to this question is to expand the definition of terror. At no point has Rudakubana’s case been treated as “terror-related” precisely because of the absence of a clear underlying ideology. That exposes a flaw in how we think about terror and how we identify threats in a changing world.
I'd ordinarily take the line that Tulip Siddiq is not responsible for her aunt's misdeeds. But she has certainly not disassociated herself away from her aunt and her wider family.
The obvious implication is that Starmer feared he would be disappeared if he wasn't nice to the niece?
Looks like bad politics again from Labour. Having an allegedly highly dodgy aunt shouldn't disqualify you from office, but it should lead to the extent of any links being carefully investigated before being offered a post.
Comments
He can see which way the wind is blowing and is wanting to be seen to view it as a terrorist attack.
Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.
It is all one big grift.
If you have a subscription:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26435242-500-the-big-unanswered-questions-about-the-covid-19-coronavirus/
I think Reform are slightly stronger favourites than shown.
I think the Tories will come a bad third, but I am not so confident about that. I think they will come third, but whether very badly or not I am not so confident.
(See the three referrals to Prevent.)
And then long grass it with an enquiry.
If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?
What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
The police and, later, CPS have got this badly wrong. The police should have disclosed enough information (i.e. "we think he wanted to do this to his school a week earlier and was stopped") to make it clear they didn't think he was specifically targeting girls. And the CPS should not have charged him with terrorist offences until after the murder and attempted murder cases were tried.
Ironically, Taiwan's COVID response was probably the best in the world.
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
And Trump has greatly strengthened their propaganda.
It’s the prosecutor in him. He’s used to asking the questions
Tut
"Behind every great fortune, there lies a great crime".
It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own.
The Fukkers will make hay.
.."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place.
And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view.
Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."
This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
He wants to sell “I am not a neo-con”.
For Ukraine, he wants to act as peacemaker.
- he has an aversion to US peacekeepers
- He likes the idea of he Europeans paying for whatever happens
So I could see a pitch of ceasefire in place, European peacekeepers, Ukraine not joint NATO or EU.
The last is because Ukraine joining either is probably existential to Putin - window time for him.
The only objective test is the legal definition - which of course varies between countries, and over time - and which in this case doesn't add much clarity either.
https://x.com/pacificjimmy/status/1881436921676849296
There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.
"Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
JJ raises an interesting point with comparisons to other cases, notably cases of white British males going on the rampage. Did people rush to judgement about the Southport killer because of the target? If it had been an attack at his school (in good 'ol American style) would terrorism have been invoked? I think probably less likely.
Charlie Bentley-Astor
@astor_charlie
Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.
Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.
I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.
Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!
The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.
Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
I think the real problem with Southport will turn out to be another classic of the Process Stare - SEP. Someone Else’s problem.
The attacker was referred to Prevent, several times. I will bet that they assessed him as a violent nutter *without a specific political/religious motivation*. So outside their remit. File closed. Lunch anyone?
Since mental health services are in a state, the file went at the bottom of a big, big stack, there.
In the responses to Starmer’s Blob stuff, on Reddit, it was interesting to see actual civil servants working through the list of examples - “not our remit, not our remit….”
This backlash was always going to happen, as backlashes have happened whenever a new technology comes along to replace the old.
At heart I tend to think of anyone who kills in the name of terrorism as mentally ill. But then I am not a repressed Gazan teenager brought up on tales of evil Israelis, or a Frenchman living under Nazi control, or any number of other things.
The manifestos that some have created make clear that the shooters themselves have little clear idea of why they are doing it. Beyond a nihilistic rage at not being the In Group.
I'm not a drug expert.
Someone sane who I am in a Whatsapp group with reported that they found this morning they were 'following' Trump on Facebook and that was news to them. Now in the past both myself and my wife have found we have unintentionally been following someone or something in Facebook and I am sure that is down to fat fingers so I dismissed this, particularly as in our cases it was completely innocuous. It has happened at least half a dozen times for both of us and often the following was set up months prior to our discovery.
Anyway since then there are lots and lots of reports of this happening today. Why? It could be lots of fat fingers over time and the people unaware of it until today when the profile picture changed and they all got notified.
Or is it something spooky? What do you think @leon? You always gone down the spooky line.
I'm going for it being innocuous and that they were unintentionally following him through fat fingers over a number of years and all found out today when the profile changed.
There is plentiful evidence this guy might be a radicalised Islamist type. Allegations he shouted Allahu Akhbar at the scene. Owning Al qaeda manuals. Apparently he is now practising Islam in. Prison. He targeted western girls at a taylor swift party - known Islamist targets. Referred to prevent 3 times. And so on
We can’t know for sure but then the trial was meant to provide that proof. But now there won’t be a trial
Instead we have a public inquiry which will last 83 years and make sure anyone that cares is dead by the time it finishes. Neat
FPT, but deserving of comment: Most optimistic post of the day. Certain political types wallow in being stuck at anger.
1. It must fit within "subsection 2" (i.e. it must involve serious violence, damage to property, endanger life etc), AND
2. It must be designed to influence government/org or intimidate the public expressly for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause
With a sweep-up at the end that also bundles in anything involving guns or bombs.
Pretty much what we all thought terrorism was. It requires a cause, otherwise it's something else (mass murder, serial killing, stalking, organised crime etc).
https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1881639551179030812
Charlie Bentley-Astor
@astor_charlie
His father rang the Police and reported Rudakubana missing - that he left in a taxi and that he "thought" his son was heading to his old school.
Police apprehended him. He was sent home.
Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.
We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.
If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
That looks like obvious manipulation of public opinion.
Listening to Starmer this morning, he admitted he was kept informed throughout and knew all the details
I do not understand why he announced this at 8.30 before Cooper presents it to the HOC
He looked very defensive, and not sure it was the most sensible decision to discuss it this morning
The number of people involved is irrelevant.
A counter example is the Las Vegas shooter - mass violence *without* a cause. So that’s not terrorism.
I'm genuinely puzzled.
Final thought while living through a decidedly average New Zealand summer. There’s a strong likelihood of snow in New Orleans while the UK may have strong winter storms with which to contend.
When the weather acts counter intuitively to what we are being told about the climate, trying to push the climate argument becomes harder.
It will take a series of major or catastrophic events probably in the richest parts of the Northern Hemisphere before the terms of the debate change significantly at which point, pace immigration, the demand for radical action will be exponential and unstoppable.
I can sort-of believe that, having seen a couple of the rambling and disjointed 'manifestos' that have been written prior to an attack. They're not exactly "What Is to Be Done?"
She also tends to limit her speeches to the commons. Starmer going out there and "explaining" just stokes the conspiracy fires.
I'm unsure it does make much of a practical difference in this case.
IMV it matters much more when there are groups or individuals who might be encouraged to perform similar heinous acts.
The dance class he attacked was in back street. He didn't stumble across that. Quite how fussy he was about his target, we don't know, but he knew what he was attacking when left his house that morning.
Maybe
I'd put them at say 12/10 as I do think the Tories need to go for this; they can't be passive and let Reform become the default right-wing choice.
So the Tories may do enough to let Labour in: vote Tory, get Labour.
See the issue of Prevent involvement.
What has he gained?
“If you’re explaining you’re losing”
Look at the response people got for pointing out that climate change would make wildfires in California more likely, even as temperatures in the state have increased by 1.5c since the 70s. They've been setting record high and record low precipitation, and the snowpack has reduced significantly so they have lost that moderator.
The "just weather" brigade will still be tweeting furiously even as their houses burn down.
- We have a crisis in housing and public services in no small part because we are letting in an extra 1% population a year. Fixing this migration will go a long way to fix these issues.
- Net Zero is a state mandated act of economic self harm. Switching to "drill baby drill" in the North Sea instead of spending billions on Carbon Capture will work wonders for the treasury.
Someone mentioned Tories best hope was Hampstead (that is assuming there is a by election there, which I wouldn't bet on). If there is a Hampstead by election the LDs I anticipate would really go for it.
"Her aunt's regime 'disappeared' people - so why did Starmer make her a minister?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmy88e7jdlo
I'd ordinarily take the line that Tulip Siddiq is not responsible for her aunt's misdeeds. But she has certainly not disassociated herself away from her aunt and her wider family.
I think these debates go in cycles. I spent vast amounts of time and energy arguing with people online around 2007-2014 about global warming. That was the peak of well funded and organised scepticism, guided by its high priest Anthony Watts on his eponymous website.
Since then opinion shifted very definitely away from denialism to an acceptance of the basic science and the debate moved on to policy rather than “is it happening” which is where it still was a decade ago. Now we are in a reactionary phase again. It remains to be seen if it goes all the way back to outright denialism or remains on the policy level.
One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning.
It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour.
Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.
The main social response is to the event itself, not its label.
Starmer surely can't go on having bad days like this. But he will. Confirms he knew all along.
Employment down by nearly 80k straight after budget, it's only heading one way.
Tulip Siddiq scandal is going to roll and roll because he doesn't have control on it and it will roll him up too. Just depends how tightly.
Which is action and which is reaction?
Some elements on the right care about it because it helps determine whether ethnic group and ancestry or religion are in any way relevant.
If he wasn't why did the father and the coppers stop him? Presumably he must have been making violent verbal threats against the school? But then again, if he was doing thar, why wasn't he arrested?
You accuse it of playing politics, but it's doing the exact opposite of that. It's avoiding politics and goes along with the fiction that there is one China, as all UN bodies do. I think the world would be a better place if Taiwan had greater international recognition, but it's not the job of the WHO to solve that. Could it do more to involve Taiwan in WHO activity? Probably.
Although Rudakubana has pleaded guilty to possessing Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, a terrorist how-to-guide, he appears to have been interested in it for its methods rather than its motive. Ursula Doyle, the prosecutor, described him as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”. One reason why Rudakubana was not picked up when he should have been is that he did not fit neatly into any of the usual boxes.
Keir Starmer is right this morning to say that the answer to this question is to expand the definition of terror. At no point has Rudakubana’s case been treated as “terror-related” precisely because of the absence of a clear underlying ideology. That exposes a flaw in how we think about terror and how we identify threats in a changing world.
https://www.ft.com/content/e78330c5-cbe0-47be-a637-66f62fe3189b
What happened there ?
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1881544641054658986
Looks like bad politics again from Labour. Having an allegedly highly dodgy aunt shouldn't disqualify you from office, but it should lead to the extent of any links being carefully investigated before being offered a post.