Skip to content

It’s Not About You – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,663
edited September 4 in General
It’s Not About You – politicalbetting.com

There is much unintentional black humour in the latest imbroglio involving the writer of Black Books.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,813
    Morning
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,813

    Nigelb said:

    One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.

    That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying.
    The US is evidently some way down it.

    Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393

    Life meets Tom Clancy. “Clear and Present Danger”.

    The film was rubbish.
    In case it needs making explicit.

    Q: On the Venezuela vessel strike, what legal authority were you guys working under?

    JD VANCE: The legal authority is there are people who are bringing -- literal terrorists -- who are bringing deadly drugs into our country

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963333620732477862

    Of course the current administration's criteria for "literal terrorists" is an ever broadening one.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,591
    edited September 4
    Third. Good morning Ms C - It's nice to hear from you, and I trust you are bearing up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,804
    The Turks have handily given a visual representation of Starmer's latest relaunch:

    https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1963305693714276597

    (Fortunately everyone got off safely)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768
    Well said Mrs @Cyclefree as usual.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,591
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.

    That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying.
    The US is evidently some way down it.

    Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393

    Life meets Tom Clancy. “Clear and Present Danger”.

    The film was rubbish.
    In case it needs making explicit.

    Q: On the Venezuela vessel strike, what legal authority were you guys working under?

    JD VANCE: The legal authority is there are people who are bringing -- literal terrorists -- who are bringing deadly drugs into our country

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963333620732477862

    Of course the current administration's criteria for "literal terrorists" is an ever broadening one.
    Perhaps he thinks they are "liberal terrorists", and so he's even more frightened.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.
  • FPT

    I don't think Rayner will resign. There will be a list of excuses and in the end Labour will not only brazen it out but can give examples of the Tories doing the same (Patel as an example).

    I don’t recall a Patel stamp duty scandal?
    Where did I say there was? She is up in front of the ministerial standards bod. Who told Patel to resign, Boris! said no, and the standards bod resigned.

    So let's assume the standards bod says she has been Bad. So what? The Tories set the awful precedent and I don't think a beleaguered PM wants to concede anything to the mob at the moment.
    I think that would be a huge mistake by Starmer. Patel was hauled up over bullying. Sadly perhaps that will not have the same traction with the public as tax evasion.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,859
    It’s quite telling he gets no real public support from people like J K Rowling


    https://x.com/icanseeforever1/status/1956246712273789167?s=61


  • Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,272
    edited September 4

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,012

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Has a whiff of the lads with guns having far too much time on their hands, let’s get in on some minor celeb action.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,804

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    I'd agree, but afaiaa the only side of the story we have is from him. There might be more to this than he has said (which is human nature...)

    Certainly, given his previous activities, there might be more to it. Someone posted this yesterday:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/10tqlp8/whats_going_on_with_graham_linehan/
  • isamisam Posts: 42,452
    Sir Keir’s Arctic Monkeys moment

    …by adopting the pretence his ministers regularly return home to living rooms bedecked in Union Jack bunting, the Prime Minister is taking the British people for fools.

    It is also reinforcing the impression of Sir Keir as a man with no meaningful belief structure. In 2020, when the Black Lives Matter movement was all the rage, Starmer dropped to his knees in his parliamentary office to show solidarity 'with all those opposing anti-black racism'.

    Now it's Operation Raise The Colours that's capturing the headlines. So suddenly Sir Keir is expressing his allegiance to those shimmying up flag lamp posts to express how they are 'a group of proud English men with a common goal to show the rest of the country of how proud we are of our history, freedoms and achievements'. Who does the Prime Minister think he's kidding?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15063369/Starmers-Union-Jack-cringe-pathetic-Gordon-Brown-Arctic-Monkeys-DAN-HODGES.html
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,214
    Trenchant header as to be expected from Cyclefree, if a tad prolix. The meme of police as victims deserves a good run.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,591
    edited September 4
    On the header, I'm not sure where I am on this one and that there are ingrained problems with police culture and that the police perhaps still do not know how to deal with it *, except that I'm fully with @Cyclefree on the basic issue, the Met are making a meal of it, and that it's unfortunately feeding into Nigel's Farago.

    I've no idea on whether Linehan has done what he is alleged to have done, or even the detail of the enquiry. But threats and abuse are well within the pattern of some activists in trans causes.

    * There was the peculiar case of the two armed response coppers who were chucked out of Scottish Armed Response allegedly for posing for a selfie with a bodacious female pop personality, who were then moved, and then received £50k compo.

    https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/25432892.police-scotland-ordered-pay-two-male-officers-50k-sexism-case/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,012
    Bridget Phillipson on making the case for Ange with all the empathetic warmth of HAL from 2001.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,711
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.

    That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying.
    The US is evidently some way down it.

    Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393

    Life meets Tom Clancy. “Clear and Present Danger”.

    The film was rubbish.
    In case it needs making explicit.

    Q: On the Venezuela vessel strike, what legal authority were you guys working under?

    JD VANCE: The legal authority is there are people who are bringing -- literal terrorists -- who are bringing deadly drugs into our country

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963333620732477862

    Of course the current administration's criteria for "literal terrorists" is an ever broadening one.
    I’m the book, the President signs a directive declaring the drug cartels a “Clear and Present Danger” to the US. Clancy did his research - under US laws this makes military action legal. But subject to congressional oversight, laws of war etc.

    I wonder whether Trump did this?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,128

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    That's different to arresting someone. They knew where he would be, airport cops are routinely armed. Maybe the law is an arse, but I see nothing out of the ordinary with the police arresting someone who is suspected of a crime. Or are we supposed to treat selebs differently?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,711

    The Turks have handily given a visual representation of Starmer's latest relaunch:

    https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1963305693714276597

    (Fortunately everyone got off safely)

    Mr Centre of Gravity and Mr Centre of Buoyancy got into a muddle there, I think.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,128

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    He would have difficulty finding unarmed officers at Heathrow
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768

    Bridget Phillipson on making the case for Ange with all the empathetic warmth of HAL from 2001.

    One has to feel (slightly) sorry for the ministers sent out to defend the indefensible this morning, when she’s likely to be gone by lunchtime.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,934
    Many thanks, @Cyclefree, happy to be reading another of your headers and so glad you've been well enough to write it.

    I (probably) agree with every word - and 'probably' because I only took time so far to read it quickly - so three cheers. Just so sad it will only meet the standard response.

    Good morning, everybody.
  • Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    He would have difficulty finding unarmed officers at Heathrow
    Five needed?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Has a whiff of the lads with guns having far too much time on their hands, let’s get in on some minor celeb action.
    There’s usually 3-4 together when they walk around airports. I don’t think armed police are ever on their own (presumably that’s an SOP)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,711
    OT

    Isn’t it obvious that the Police are victims in this? They have no agency.

    Apart from NFAing* endless reports of assaults etc on women. For decades, they managed to NFA thousands of reports on The Subject We Can’t Discuss.

    Apart from NFAing crimes they don’t think important - report the location of a stolen phone or computer and you’ll get a rather aggressive warning about not trying to recover it. Plus NFA.

    So they have no discretion. Except when they do.

    *NFA No Further Action
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,128

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    He would have difficulty finding unarmed officers at Heathrow
    Five needed?
    He probably asked for volunteers. When they raided my neighbourhood cannabis farm, the local bobbly apologised for the number of officers "we didn't know so many would turn up". A lot of policing is boring, you get volunteers for anything perceived as interesting.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,391
    fpt

    FWIW the crucial passage in the Rayner statement is this:

    I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase.


    Make of it what you will, but is has a slight incompleteness/ambiguity about it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayners-full-statement-on-her-stamp-duty-underpayment
  • Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,934
    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    That's a given, so perhaps their operational rules should allow for routine PC Plod duties like dealing with very low risk targets. They probably have quite a number of shoplifters, for example.
  • Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    That's different to arresting someone. They knew where he would be, airport cops are routinely armed. Maybe the law is an arse, but I see nothing out of the ordinary with the police arresting someone who is suspected of a crime. Or are we supposed to treat selebs differently?
    It certainly does happen where they say come in, you will then be arrested and then interviewed under caution.
  • Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,804

    The Turks have handily given a visual representation of Starmer's latest relaunch:

    https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1963305693714276597

    (Fortunately everyone got off safely)

    Mr Centre of Gravity and Mr Centre of Buoyancy got into a muddle there, I think.
    There are several cuts in the video, and it seemingly did not sink quickly. You may be correct, but I wonder if Mr Did Not Close Sea Chests or Mrs Water Got In or Ms We Did Not Seal The Hull were the primary cause.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263

    The Turks have handily given a visual representation of Starmer's latest relaunch:

    https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1963305693714276597

    (Fortunately everyone got off safely)

    Mr Centre of Gravity and Mr Centre of Buoyancy got into a muddle there, I think.
    There are several cuts in the video, and it seemingly did not sink quickly. You may be correct, but I wonder if Mr Did Not Close Sea Chests or Mrs Water Got In or Ms We Did Not Seal The Hull were the primary cause.
    Of course, Messrs C of G, C of B and Moment Arm, and Mrs Free Surface still had the last word.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,934

    The Turks have handily given a visual representation of Starmer's latest relaunch:

    https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1963305693714276597

    (Fortunately everyone got off safely)

    I do hope that happened yesterday, which was Merchant Navy Day.

    Was it real or one of those AI things?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    edited September 4

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Thanks. My impression was that the actual legislation conflicts [edit] in terms of detail implementation of the various acts, in a way which leads various bodies including national and local governments to want some independent guidance UK wide to minimise hassles/cover their collective backsides. But that's much the same thing really.
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 158
    edited September 4
    Deleted
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,591
    The first of two defence stories:

    Numbers of the RAF Typhoon fleet have been published at last. TLDR: Nearly all of the oldest batch have been scrapped, so we are - it is claimed - down to 110, which are supposed keep us going until Tempest arrives.

    I don't see it, and I think that we will need another batch, as even if Tempest is in service 2035 as Japan needs (maybe optimistic but it will be there or thereabouts), it will still take a long time to build up slowly, or we will lose "continuous build" later on and therefore skills.

    So I say we will need another 25 of *something* land-based fast jet over current arrangements in the 2030s.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,272
    edited September 4
    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    AnthonyT said:

    Deleted

    Ah here we are - the formal consultation process of the ECHR is indeed still ongoing. Be odd *not* to wait till this is completed.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10259/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,743
    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    There is no need to wait. The law is perfectly clear. Even the Equality & Human Rights Commission has said there's no reason to wait. The law has in fact been perfectly clear for some considerable time. It is simply that a lot of organisations don't like it and are using any and every excuse to avoid complying with it.

    As for Linehan, I don't give a flying fuck about him. Another male narcissist who thinks his feelings matter more than anything else. He has been pretty unpleasant to women if they don't treat him with the respect he claims to deserve and goes into a bloody great sulk. The great baby. If he's been mistreated he should get a remedy but the hero worship is unwarranted.

    Worth reading the article I reference and the Northumbria judgment (as well as the Newman v Met judgment - currently being appealed) for the utter shitshow the police have got themselves into, aided and abetted by the craven authorities.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    Cyclefree said:

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    There is no need to wait. The law is perfectly clear. Even the Equality & Human Rights Commission has said there's no reason to wait. The law has in fact been perfectly clear for some considerable time. It is simply that a lot of organisations don't like it and are using any and every excuse to avoid complying with it.

    As for Linehan, I don't give a flying fuck about him. Another male narcissist who thinks his feelings matter more than anything else. He has been pretty unpleasant to women if they don't treat him with the respect he claims to deserve and goes into a bloody great sulk. The great baby. If he's been mistreated he should get a remedy but the hero worship is unwarranted.

    Worth reading the article I reference and the Northumbria judgment (as well as the Newman v Met judgment - currently being appealed) for the utter shitshow the police have got themselves into, aided and abetted by the craven authorities.
    Got confused by the system ... I was going by the ECHR review as described by the HoC Library, linky posted just now.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,202
    geoffw said:

    Trenchant header as to be expected from Cyclefree, if a tad prolix. The meme of police as victims deserves a good run.

    I don't quite get this 'prolix' thing. The style here is to bang the nail right into the wood and I think it works.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,934
    MattW said:

    The first of two defence stories:

    Numbers of the RAF Typhoon fleet have been published at last. TLDR: Nearly all of the oldest batch have been scrapped, so we are - it is claimed - down to 110, which are supposed keep us going until Tempest arrives.

    I don't see it, and I think that we will need another batch, as even if Tempest is in service 2035 as Japan needs (maybe optimistic but it will be there or thereabouts), it will still take a long time to build up slowly, or we will lose "continuous build" later on and therefore skills.

    So I say we will need another 25 of *something* land-based fast jet over current arrangements in the 2030s.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/

    Time to spin up the drone squadron?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,960
    algarkirk said:

    fpt

    FWIW the crucial passage in the Rayner statement is this:

    I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase.


    Make of it what you will, but is has a slight incompleteness/ambiguity about it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayners-full-statement-on-her-stamp-duty-underpayment

    Yes, the other thing is that “consulted” (in respect of the three pieces of advice she got) could mean all sorts of things.

    Were these three pieces of written advice to which she provided all pertinent information and were the lawyers formally engaged to advise on the situation?

    I don’t know, obviously, but it’s a very different situation to say, asking someone incidentally or in passing to asking for formal written advice setting out all the facts. Any lawyer worth their salt will have adequately caveated any incidental advice or ensured tax matters are outside their engagement, I’d have thought.
  • The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,904

    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
    What if it concluded she is guilty as hell and must resign?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    edited September 4

    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
    Unless the correspondence is indeed conclusive. Edit: either way, as MP points out.

    Won't have long to wait and see.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,391
    edited September 4

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Maybe I'ma bit dim but I am not sure quite what this is saying. As I see it, there have always been single sex spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms, which either are single sex common space, or unisex private individual space for use by one sex at a time.

    The SC changed none of that. It only declared what an act of Parliament meant WRT a particular group of people and what their sex was, and therefore which facility they use if there are alternatives required.

    IMHO this leaves anomalies, as did the prior understanding of the law, but I am not clear what change is required from organisations?

    Enforcement of course is another issue, but not a new one.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,976

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    Interesting question. Maybe one of our criminal lawyers can answer.

    If a hacker in St Petersburg causes a power station to go down in Britain, can they be arrested if they enter the country?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,638

    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Clearly the order of whitewash has arrived early.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,743
    DavidL said:

    Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

    But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

    With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

    There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

    The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

    This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,976

    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
    If it concludes she’s bang to rights, plenty of people will believe it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,591
    edited September 4
    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    The first of two defence stories:

    Numbers of the RAF Typhoon fleet have been published at last. TLDR: Nearly all of the oldest batch have been scrapped, so we are - it is claimed - down to 110, which are supposed keep us going until Tempest arrives.

    I don't see it, and I think that we will need another batch, as even if Tempest is in service 2035 as Japan needs (maybe optimistic but it will be there or thereabouts), it will still take a long time to build up slowly, or we will lose "continuous build" later on and therefore skills.

    So I say we will need another 25 of *something* land-based fast jet over current arrangements in the 2030s.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/

    Time to spin up the drone squadron?
    It's coming, and I can see us having a permanent set of drones in the air around the coast (as will be one model for a future Carrier Group, like the old proposals for Internet to Remote areas via hovering drones. I'm not sure if we are close yet, or if the current fleet are enough to maintain even a minimum capacity as needed.

    Mr Tump still being extant may be relevant - once he's gone we can wind in the fluffing and promises a little :smile: .
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Maybe I'ma bit dim but I am not sure quite what this is saying. As I see it, there have always been single sex spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms, which either are single sex common space, or unisex private individual space for use by one sex at a time.

    The SC changed none of that. It only declared what an act of Parliament meant WRT a particular group of people and what their sex was, and therefore which facility they use if there are alternatives required.

    IMHO this leaves anomalies, as did the prior understanding of the law, but I am not clear what change is required from organisations?

    Enforcement of course is another issue, but not a new one.
    That was my impression too - everyone was waiting on the ECHR to get an at least generally accepted interpretation which could be implemented while blaming the ECHR if any employee etc complained. Also a consistent one across the board in the UK.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,638

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?

    This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    Interesting question. Maybe one of our criminal lawyers can answer.

    If a hacker in St Petersburg causes a power station to go down in Britain, can they be arrested if they enter the country?
    I’m not a lawyer, but I would have thought yes.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Thanks. My impression was that the actual legislation conflicts [edit] in terms of detail implementation of the various acts, in a way which leads various bodies including national and local governments to want some independent guidance UK wide to minimise hassles/cover their collective backsides. But that's much the same thing really.
    There is certainly an element of wanting to minimise hassle. It is clear that many trans rights activists are arguing that the SC judgement does not mean what it plainly does. In Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife & Dr Upton, for example, the defendants have attempted to argue that the SC judgement does not mean that they have to provide single sex changing rooms. One of their arguments is the somewhat novel proposition that, as the regulations in question were introduced to implement an EU directive, case law in EU courts overrides the SC judgement notwithstanding Brexit (although the case law they are advancing doesn't actually support their position that a trans identifying man must be allowed to use the female facilities). I'm sure that some organisations would like the backing of EHRC guidance when dealing with trans activists. However, it is clear that some simply want to find a way to ignore the SC judgement.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,976
    Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.

    If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).

    Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,591
    Defence story two.

    A small reverse ferret by the Scottish Government on their policy of refusal to support defence projects (but it's more nuanced than that), which nearly stopped a project for a submarine welding something something something, and UK Gov had to step in.

    They now support them, except for "Israel linked", of which there is very little.

    Is there n election coming ?

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/scottish-government-lifts-weapons-industry-support-ban/
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?

    This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
    That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.

    But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768
    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    The first of two defence stories:

    Numbers of the RAF Typhoon fleet have been published at last. TLDR: Nearly all of the oldest batch have been scrapped, so we are - it is claimed - down to 110, which are supposed keep us going until Tempest arrives.

    I don't see it, and I think that we will need another batch, as even if Tempest is in service 2035 as Japan needs (maybe optimistic but it will be there or thereabouts), it will still take a long time to build up slowly, or we will lose "continuous build" later on and therefore skills.

    So I say we will need another 25 of *something* land-based fast jet over current arrangements in the 2030s.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/

    Time to spin up the drone squadron?
    The Ukranians will happily supply a drone squadron or 10 in exchange for a few older Typhoons.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,638
    edited September 4

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?

    This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
    That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.

    But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.

    The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.

    And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768
    TimS said:

    Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.

    If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).

    Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.

    Even if it was meant seriously rather than comedically, the words and sentiment are identical to those commonly used in self-defence classes.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,935

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

    But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

    With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

    There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

    The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

    This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
    Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?

    I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.

    I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
    This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Thanks. My impression was that the actual legislation conflicts [edit] in terms of detail implementation of the various acts, in a way which leads various bodies including national and local governments to want some independent guidance UK wide to minimise hassles/cover their collective backsides. But that's much the same thing really.
    There is certainly an element of wanting to minimise hassle. It is clear that many trans rights activists are arguing that the SC judgement does not mean what it plainly does. In Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife & Dr Upton, for example, the defendants have attempted to argue that the SC judgement does not mean that they have to provide single sex changing rooms. One of their arguments is the somewhat novel proposition that, as the regulations in question were introduced to implement an EU directive, case law in EU courts overrides the SC judgement notwithstanding Brexit (although the case law they are advancing doesn't actually support their position that a trans identifying man must be allowed to use the female facilities). I'm sure that some organisations would like the backing of EHRC guidance when dealing with trans activists. However, it is clear that some simply want to find a way to ignore the SC judgement.
    Thanks. It is, in any case, quite common at work to rely on guidance documents from various public authorities/professional bodies for all sorts of issues, rather than try and work through the relevant Acts (though I did have to do that on occasion). So it seems a perfectly sensible approach in that sense.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,878
    Good morning, everyone.

    I think it's worse for Rayner if the investigation concludes after six minutes. It won't exactly feel exhaustive and detailed, and (unless it finds her to have done wrong and be worthy of a penalty) it'll be seen as a blatant whitewash and add to the momentum of negative stories about her.

    Starmer may not mind. He's less likely to face a leadership threat from the Minister for Housing now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,012
    Taz said:

    It’s quite telling he gets no real public support from people like J K Rowling


    https://x.com/icanseeforever1/status/1956246712273789167?s=61


    Poor old Graham, if St JK and the GCs can clasp a racist to their bosom surely they can take a monomaniacal Irishman with a huge head?

    'Is it coz I got balls?'
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768
    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    That's a given, so perhaps their operational rules should allow for routine PC Plod duties like dealing with very low risk targets. They probably have quite a number of shoplifters, for example.
    Funnily enough there’s almost no petty crime at airports, no shoplifting or phone snatching. I wonder if having dozens of armed police on patrol and CCTV on every corner might have something to do with it?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,012
    Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

    But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

    With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

    There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

    The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

    This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
    Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?

    I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.

    I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
    This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
    Are you comparing 2 actual examples, or an actual example and a hypothetical that is a sum of all your discomfort with trans people?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,564

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of the problems with lowering the bar to labelling people terrorists is that, for some leaders, that's now a green light for extra-judicial execution.

    That is a more sinister slippery slope than (say) assisted dying.
    The US is evidently some way down it.

    Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963382824880259393

    Life meets Tom Clancy. “Clear and Present Danger”.

    The film was rubbish.
    In case it needs making explicit.

    Q: On the Venezuela vessel strike, what legal authority were you guys working under?

    JD VANCE: The legal authority is there are people who are bringing -- literal terrorists -- who are bringing deadly drugs into our country

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963333620732477862

    Of course the current administration's criteria for "literal terrorists" is an ever broadening one.
    I’m the book, the President signs a directive declaring the drug cartels a “Clear and Present Danger” to the US. Clancy did his research - under US laws this makes military action legal. But subject to congressional oversight, laws of war etc.

    I wonder whether Trump did this?
    He's merely escalating and repeating the policy that drug use is a supply problem.
    Evil foreigners foisting evil substances on an innocent population who have no agency whatsoever in the matter.
    It's a policy which has been tried for decades and hasn't yet shown any sign of working. Indeed has loads of unwanted side effects.

    Why Americans, the wealthiest nation on the planet, are so unhappy that the want to consume so many mind altering substances to salve the sadness and lack of satisfaction in their miserable lives is too painful a concept to consider.
    And as for the fact they might enjoy the product?
    Well. Heaven forfend!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    That's a given, so perhaps their operational rules should allow for routine PC Plod duties like dealing with very low risk targets. They probably have quite a number of shoplifters, for example.
    Funnily enough there’s almost no petty crime at airports, no shoplifting or phone snatching. I wonder if having dozens of armed police on patrol and CCTV on every corner might have something to do with it?
    Drunk and disorderly not an issue?
  • Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

    But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

    With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

    There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

    The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

    This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
    Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?

    I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.

    I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
    This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
    Why? The "genuine man" is far more likely to be a threat. Nor does a predator need to pretend to be a woman to gain access to women - as demonstrated by the vast majority of cases.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,935
    TimS said:

    Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.

    If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).

    Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.

    Surely not? Surely in the Bishop Brennan case the inciter bears no responsibility because noone reasonable would be expected to follow through? If I were to tell you, on here, to kick the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury (say) in the arse, and you did so, no legal process would go after Cookie off the internet because the suggestion is clearly ridiculous? Surely?
  • AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    The first of two defence stories:

    Numbers of the RAF Typhoon fleet have been published at last. TLDR: Nearly all of the oldest batch have been scrapped, so we are - it is claimed - down to 110, which are supposed keep us going until Tempest arrives.

    I don't see it, and I think that we will need another batch, as even if Tempest is in service 2035 as Japan needs (maybe optimistic but it will be there or thereabouts), it will still take a long time to build up slowly, or we will lose "continuous build" later on and therefore skills.

    So I say we will need another 25 of *something* land-based fast jet over current arrangements in the 2030s.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/

    Time to spin up the drone squadron?
    "He will make an excellent drone!" :lol:
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,728
    edited September 4
    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    That's a given, so perhaps their operational rules should allow for routine PC Plod duties like dealing with very low risk targets. They probably have quite a number of shoplifters, for example.
    Funnily enough there’s almost no petty crime at airports, no shoplifting or phone snatching. I wonder if having dozens of armed police on patrol and CCTV on every corner might have something to do with it?
    Or maybe it's because you have to be among the highest income households to be able to go on a flight. You'll still get the occasional kleptomaniac I guess.

    FWIW shoplifting has cratered in the shop I used to work in. Along with the adjacent shops, all of which tend to sell high value or specialist goods, they've got face recognition technology set up and the manager gets a ping on her phone when someone is within 500m of the shop, and another if they enter. It's very much a supermarket phenomenon in her opinion. Arcteryx jackets remain an issue though.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,263
    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.

    If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).

    Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.

    Surely not? Surely in the Bishop Brennan case the inciter bears no responsibility because noone reasonable would be expected to follow through? If I were to tell you, on here, to kick the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury (say) in the arse, and you did so, no legal process would go after Cookie off the internet because the suggestion is clearly ridiculous? Surely?
    ON social media, you never know who is - are - reading, and how they might react to it. Very different from talking to a known person, in the Ted incident. That's one obvious difference, whatever its significance.
  • SNP Presser is live if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/live/QphZNm0fWcU

    The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.

    They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.

    Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!

    Wankers. They have literally no clue.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,934

    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    Interesting question. Maybe one of our criminal lawyers can answer.

    If a hacker in St Petersburg causes a power station to go down in Britain, can they be arrested if they enter the country?
    I’m not a lawyer, but I would have thought yes.
    The plane sabotage that took effect over Lockerbie is perhaps an example.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,904
    edited September 4
    Linehan, a comic genius, has become a parody of his most offensive characatures.

    Should plod have had a word? Quite possibly. Should five armed officers have arrested him at Heathrow? Probably not.

    I don't believe this is so much a trans rights issue as another operational and PR fiasco from the Met. Rowley suggesting hands were tied is arrant nonsense. In terms of operational failure the buck stops with him.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,907

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Have you read the current EHRC guidance? It contains the following, very helpful (hah!) advice to service providers & employers:

    from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment
    “In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:

    trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
    in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
    however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
    where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”
    So a service provider that does not have room for both mens, womens & mixed sex provision is placed in an apparently impossible position where they cannot legally provide toilet facilities without compromising their legal obligations to one protected characteristic or another. Helpfuily the EHRC doesn’t even bother to define when it might not be permission to let a trans person use either gendered toilet.

    Note that the EHRC believes that only offering mixed sex provision is also “potentially” discriminatory, so employers & services providers can’t even take the option of making sure that all the provision has individual lockable external doors & making them mixed sex. They offer no legal justification for this position, but any employer is going to be unhappy at the prospect of going against EHRC advice.

    This is the mess that employers & service providers are talking about when they complain that existing guidance is unclear: They have legal obligations under the Equality Act to both trans & non-trans individuals, but many of them have been put in the invidious position of being unable to satisfy both under the current EHRC guidance.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,084

    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
    Either Rayner can provide the paperwork which proves she was given the wrong advice or she can’t . It shouldn’t take that long .

    The issue might be not so much what she was told if it was wrong but what she told them . So did she withhold relevant details or simply assume that she no longer owned a share of the property and told lawyers that. It still seems strange that if she mentioned the trust this didn’t raise a red flag . Or of course any correspondence from lawyers might simply state according to your circumstances which you explained in our meeting you’re liable for the standard stamp duty . It might not clearly state what she told them .

    I like Angela Rayner and hope she’s cleared . I expect we won’t have long to wait .
  • TimS said:

    Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.

    If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).

    Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.

    "Oh, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on...!"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,768
    So there can be some good uses for AI:

    The Angela Rayner tax-dodging rap song.

    https://x.com/hoodedclaw1974/status/1963483803986337810
  • nico67 said:

    The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

    An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

    A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

    Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

    “So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

    ----

    She isn't going anywhere.

    Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
    Either Rayner can provide the paperwork which proves she was given the wrong advice or she can’t . It shouldn’t take that long .

    The issue might be not so much what she was told if it was wrong but what she told them . So did she withhold relevant details or simply assume that she no longer owned a share of the property and told lawyers that. It still seems strange that if she mentioned the trust this didn’t raise a red flag . Or of course any correspondence from lawyers might simply state according to your circumstances which you explained in our meeting you’re liable for the standard stamp duty . It might not clearly state what she told them .

    I like Angela Rayner and hope she’s cleared . I expect we won’t have long to wait .
    You may like her but after this, no matter the outcome, she will not be the same in many voters eyes
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?

    This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
    That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.

    But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.

    The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.

    And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
    Airport police always move in groups, depends what they were doing at the time

  • Brilliant from Swinney. A load of waffle and then "this is my declaration, its our right to choose".

    Great. So what's the plan man?

    Oh, there isn't one.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748
    edited September 4
    Phil said:

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
    Have you read the current EHRC guidance? It contains the following, very helpful (hah!) advice to service providers & employers:

    from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment
    “In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:

    trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
    in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
    however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
    where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”
    So a service provider that does not have room for both mens, womens & mixed sex provision is placed in an apparently impossible position where they cannot legally provide toilet facilities without compromising their legal obligations to one protected characteristic or another. Helpfuily the EHRC doesn’t even bother to define when it might not be permission to let a trans person use either gendered toilet.

    Note that the EHRC believes that only offering mixed sex provision is also “potentially” discriminatory, so employers & services providers can’t even take the option of making sure that all the provision has individual lockable external doors & making them mixed sex. They offer no legal justification for this position, but any employer is going to be unhappy at the prospect of going against EHRC advice.

    This is the mess that employers & service providers are talking about when they complain that existing guidance is unclear: They have legal obligations under the Equality Act to both trans & non-trans individuals, but many of them have been put in the invidious position of being unable to satisfy both under the current EHRC guidance.

    Single user washrooms
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,012

    SNP Presser is live if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/live/QphZNm0fWcU

    The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.

    They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.

    Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!

    Wankers. They have literally no clue.

    Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,391
    WRT Rayner, I keep my relationship with the HMRC as terse and simple as possible and buffered by an accountant so have no experience of what to do about complexity.

    However, it seems to me that, especially for people prominent in the public political realm, the thing to do about any extraordinary transactions which may have tax implications is to get yourself on the record early and often with HMRC with the relevant facts and questions. Do this, in addition to consulting accountants and lawyers, and if you don't like what the HMRC conclude (which is unlikely to favour you) use the accountants and lawyers to argue with them.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,179

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?

    This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
    That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.

    But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.

    The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.

    And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
    Airport police always move in groups, depends what they were doing at the time

    I don’t think those police were randomly walking through the airport then when Linehan landed someone radioed them to pick him up.

    His name would have pinged up as flying in and so it would have been arranged to arrest him on arrival.

    Many years ago I was falsely accused of something and not arrested or informed of charges (yet alone being given the opportunity to provide evidence that would absolutely clear me) by the police and it went to court in the UK, which I knew nothing about, and then miraculously the police managed to contact me, having been unable to do so for six months before, to tell me there was a warrant out for me and I would be arrested on arrival in the UK so someone would be waiting for me when I landed or docked.

    Obviously I avoided the UK until I managed to show the CPS that it was a load of bollocks with irrefutable evidence and they sent me a letter apologising, clearing me of any accusation and dropping the warrant. I made sure I carried that letter (physically and digital copies and lodged with my lawyer on top) for quite a few trips after as I didn’t trust that there wouldn’t be some glitch in the system.
  • SNP Presser is live if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/live/QphZNm0fWcU

    The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.

    They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.

    Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!

    Wankers. They have literally no clue.

    Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
    But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,748
    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.

    Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
    He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.

    AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?

    The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
    This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK

    etc
    Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*

    So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
    That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?

    This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
    That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.

    But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.

    The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.

    And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
    Airport police always move in groups, depends what they were doing at the time

    I don’t think those police were randomly walking through the airport then when Linehan landed someone radioed them to pick him up.

    His name would have pinged up as flying in and so it would have been arranged to arrest him on arrival.

    Many years ago I was falsely accused of something and not arrested or informed of charges (yet alone being given the opportunity to provide evidence that would absolutely clear me) by the police and it went to court in the UK, which I knew nothing about, and then miraculously the police managed to contact me, having been unable to do so for six months before, to tell me there was a warrant out for me and I would be arrested on arrival in the UK so someone would be waiting for me when I landed or docked.

    Obviously I avoided the UK until I managed to show the CPS that it was a load of bollocks with irrefutable evidence and they sent me a letter apologising, clearing me of any accusation and dropping the warrant. I made sure I carried that letter (physically and digital copies and lodged with my lawyer on top) for quite a few trips after as I didn’t trust that there wouldn’t be some glitch in the system.
    You live in Jersey. That makes you a Rayner.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,743
    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Carnyx said:

    Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.

    There is no need to wait. The law is perfectly clear. Even the Equality & Human Rights Commission has said there's no reason to wait. The law has in fact been perfectly clear for some considerable time. It is simply that a lot of organisations don't like it and are using any and every excuse to avoid complying with it.

    As for Linehan, I don't give a flying fuck about him. Another male narcissist who thinks his feelings matter more than anything else. He has been pretty unpleasant to women if they don't treat him with the respect he claims to deserve and goes into a bloody great sulk. The great baby. If he's been mistreated he should get a remedy but the hero worship is unwarranted.

    Worth reading the article I reference and the Northumbria judgment (as well as the Newman v Met judgment - currently being appealed) for the utter shitshow the police have got themselves into, aided and abetted by the craven authorities.
    Got confused by the system ... I was going by the ECHR review as described by the HoC Library, linky posted just now.
    There will be guidance. But guidance is not the law and cannot change the law.

    The obligation is to comply with the law and loads of organisations have for some considerable time before the FWS judgment and since it deliberately chosen to ignore the law. Not because they are confused and the law is unclear but because they don't want to comply. They are acting in bad faith. The Scottish government has even said that it may wait until after the 2026 Holyrood elections before complying. It has not yet paid FWS the costs they are owed and so they are, once again, having to raise money from ordinary women to take the government to court again to get it to comply with the law. This is despite ScotGov saying that of course it respected the SC judgment and Swinney blethering on about how important the rule of law is, how much he respects it blah blah. Well his government's actions show this to be a complete lie.

    It is intolerable.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,728
    The most read article on the BBC news article is positive for Rayner. Basically pins the blame on the three lawyers she consulted.

    She'll survive.
Sign In or Register to comment.