We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
One of the men arrested in Huntingdon has been released with no charge
Lone wolf attack?
So the reports of passengers saying "he's got a knife" were correct. It did always sound like one attacker. Feel sorry for the other guy arrested.
Very possibly he's quite a hero.
Is there an irony, considering the context of the situation, that he might have been arrested because he was racially profiled ?
"He's a wrong 'un, Sir..."
If he is a hero, it will be a narrative pushed, rather desperately by the powers that be.
If someone pulls a knife on you, you should kill them. Or at the very least, render them incapable of using it.
The process state doesn't like self-defence.
Except in America, where they think you absolutely should shoot such people dead.
From my oil industry days. A chap from Texas related the following - in his small town, there was a bit of a problem with criminals from Dallas driving out into the sticks and robbing houses. On one occasion the lady of the house was in (her husband was away, offshore) and shot the would be robber dead.
The police came to do their thing. Including taking the gun away as evidence.
This caused murmuring among the neighbours. The local sheriff, thinking of re-election, went to his car and got a very special and expensive personal gun. Which he publicly lent to the lady, until hers was returned.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
That's fair comment. We'll see what she does.
I have some sympathy with the "Zero VAT should be restricted to adapted vehicles only" point, as that fits with Zero VAT on medical devices (if I buy a blood glucose meter or a home A1C test there is a "VAT exempt" tick-box).
But does that then put a question mark over other zero rated categories? Was it hot sausage rolls that caused the Osborne fuss? Why should those be zero rated when disabled people who have £1000 per month of extra household expenses (typical figure for a household with one disabled person) be forced to pay VAT on a car they have to buy because they can't walk anywhere?
Given that public transport is 0-rated, I can see how the argument was originally made that Motabilty should be 0-rated too.
Any top-ups over & above the PIP-payment level should attract the same taxes that everyone else pays though.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
And afterwards - how would you be judged?
Is this less than exciting interview leading to a point you'd like to make?
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
And afterwards - how would you be judged?
‘‘Tis better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
And afterwards - how would you be judged?
Is this less than exciting interview leading to a point you'd like to make?
No, you make the point.
(But of course yes in that the things we respect aren't just for others to defend. However I wasn't really making a point, just wandering around the thinking)
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was thinking that one thing you could look for on a train is a fire extinguisher. Not sure what I'd do with it mind, but it could be useful.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was thinking that one thing you could look for on a train is a fire extinguisher. Not sure what I'd do with it mind, but it could be useful.
Used to regularly board trains with two ice axes strapped to my rucksack. Adze, pick or spike - that would be the question.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
In the case you are alluding to, Tony Martin shot the burglars in the back once they had left the farm and were running away.
That should not be encouraged even if the antagonists were lowlife scum (as they were in that case)
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was wondering if that model of train might have had a fire extinguisher that might make a good bludgeon. Though frankly with a drugged up stabby psycho it might have been a bit one-sided.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was wondering if that model of train might have had a fire extinguisher that might make a good bludgeon. Though frankly with a drugged up stabby psycho it might have been a bit one-sided.
You’d actually do better to trigger it and aim in his direction
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was wondering if that model of train might have had a fire extinguisher that might make a good bludgeon. Though frankly with a drugged up stabby psycho it might have been a bit one-sided.
You’d actually do better to trigger it and aim in his direction
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was thinking that one thing you could look for on a train is a fire extinguisher. Not sure what I'd do with it mind, but it could be useful.
Used to regularly board trains with two ice axes strapped to my rucksack. Adze, pick or spike - that would be the question.
In a confined area I’d go with thrust with the spike.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was thinking that one thing you could look for on a train is a fire extinguisher. Not sure what I'd do with it mind, but it could be useful.
Used to regularly board trains with two ice axes strapped to my rucksack. Adze, pick or spike - that would be the question.
Got escorted through Chicago airport by the heavies for that.
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
Imagine that?! Trapped on a train with a lunatic trying to kill everyone, then banged up for 24 hrs after. He should be compensated quite generously I think
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
He also seems blissfully unaware of the sub jucide laws.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
That was supposed to be case but everybody and their dog can get it now, you just say you have abad back, ADHD, autistic whatever and it is handed out , more than 700 joining everday or week seemingly. Soon you will be odd man/woman out if you are not getting it.
With your anger management issues, Malc, you should enquire whether you can get a free Merc.
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
He also seems blissfully unaware of the sub jucide laws.
Which apply after arrest.
One or two posters on PB today seemed unaware, too.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
He also seems blissfully unaware of the sub jucide laws.
Which apply after arrest.
One or two posters on PB today seemed unaware, too.
Yep. But of course he is the one boasting of millions of views and a massive audience for his substack etc etc
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
There is a bit more to it than that. Monmouthshire had two knights of the shire (MPs) like English counties, where as Welsh counties only had one.
Straw clutching. Anyway - it is a very moot point. It is very definitley and indisputably in Wales today.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
There is a bit more to it than that. Monmouthshire had two knights of the shire (MPs) like English counties, where as Welsh counties only had one.
Straw clutching. Anyway - it is a very moot point. It is very definitley and indisputably in Wales today.
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
He also seems blissfully unaware of the sub jucide laws.
Which apply after arrest.
One or two posters on PB today seemed unaware, too.
Yep. But of course he is the one boasting of millions of views and a massive audience for his substack etc etc
Sure, but OGH doesn't risk getting it in the neck when Mr G puts his out!
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
There is a bit more to it than that. Monmouthshire had two knights of the shire (MPs) like English counties, where as Welsh counties only had one.
Straw clutching. Anyway - it is a very moot point. It is very definitley and indisputably in Wales today.
Well if you want to call historical fact straw clutching fair enough...
The poor people of Monmouthshire have voted against devolution in the three referendums they have been asked and they are still stuck with it. One day they will throw off the shackles of despotic Cardiff rule.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
There is a bit more to it than that. Monmouthshire had two knights of the shire (MPs) like English counties, where as Welsh counties only had one.
Straw clutching. Anyway - it is a very moot point. It is very definitley and indisputably in Wales today.
I've just read the entirety of that Goodwin super-long tweet, and it's a stretch to refer to him as 'relatively civilised'. In fact, it's an overtly racist, nationalist pile of selective bilge that would be looked upon favourably by white supremacists. It's worth a read, given how popular he is in some circles.
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
He also seems blissfully unaware of the sub jucide laws.
We should absolutely encourage have a go heroes. They're a disincentive to committing crime. Trapped into some lonely old farmhouse on the promise of mattresses full of cash and the old git polishes you off with a blunderbuss? Tough tits.
So what would you do if you happened upon some violent scene?
That would depend what I felt I could do given the situation. If running away in terror was the most sensible thing to do, I would absolutely do that. The train was an incredibly difficult situation. I am sure I would have retreated, but would have hoped to be one of the ones looking around for some weapons to defend those behind them when the assailant came.
Older Lenovo clamshell laptops have magnesium cases, in part (bottom layer) or whole (including the screen). You can hit people with it: either like a frying pan (which will break it) or thrust it forward into the face edgewise (which will briefly stun them and probably not break it. Probably). In this case it may serve best as a knife shield.
I was wondering if that model of train might have had a fire extinguisher that might make a good bludgeon. Though frankly with a drugged up stabby psycho it might have been a bit one-sided.
Fire extinguisher is the weapon of choice of the Slow Horses....
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
No doubt. It seems that about 10 years is the expectation though.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
I have a Sun Sparc II and a Sun whatever small workstation in front of me, used as monitor stands. I bought them from Ebay 20-odd years back in order to upskill myself after a long period of unemployment. Then I got a job a week or so later so there was no point. One day I shall pay someone to come and take them to an e-waste recycling facility.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
No doubt. It seems that about 10 years is the expectation though.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
I have a Sun Sparc II and a Sun whatever small workstation in front of me, used as monitor stands. I bought them from Ebay 20-odd years back in order to upskill myself after a long period of unemployment. Then I got a job a week or so later so there was no point. One day I shall pay someone to come and take them to an e-waste recycling facility.
You probably get enough on eBay to make it worth your while. Even if they’re dead; people like to retrofit the cases with something modern.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Isn't it as grimly straigtforward as he's fallen victim to anthropologist's curse and gone native?
(One of the genuinely interesting things about Farage is that he has managed to hold his line, despite hanging round the right for ages. Goodwin hasn't, Hannan hasn't, Calvin Robinson vanished down the plughole, but Nigel stays just the right side of the line.)
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
There is a bit more to it than that. Monmouthshire had two knights of the shire (MPs) like English counties, where as Welsh counties only had one.
Straw clutching. Anyway - it is a very moot point. It is very definitley and indisputably in Wales today.
Free Free Monmouthshire
Monmouthshire Action, Action for Monmouthshire, the Monmouthshire Liberation Front and the Front for the Liberation of Monmouthshire have been hammer and tongs at each other for decades. Chepstow lies in ruins, Risca and Caerleon are beyond repair. The entire population of Monmouth have been slaughtered or led into slavery in Newport.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Isn't it as grimly straigtforward as he's fallen victim to anthropologist's curse and gone native?
(One of the genuinely interesting things about Farage is that he has managed to hold his line, despite hanging round the right for ages. Goodwin hasn't, Hannan hasn't, Calvin Robinson vanished down the plughole, but Nigel stays just the right side of the line.)
Doesn't take long. I can remember when Laurence Fox was just a bit refreshingly different from the standard issue leftish luvvie and it was quite fun. Happy days, never to return.
(Agree about Farage. Farage has a touch of genius, but then, so does Trump.)
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
That's fair comment. We'll see what she does.
I have some sympathy with the "Zero VAT should be restricted to adapted vehicles only" point, as that fits with Zero VAT on medical devices (if I buy a blood glucose meter or a home A1C test there is a "VAT exempt" tick-box).
But does that then put a question mark over other zero rated categories? Was it hot sausage rolls that caused the Osborne fuss? Why should those be zero rated when disabled people who have £1000 per month of extra household expenses (typical figure for a household with one disabled person) be forced to pay VAT on a car they have to buy because they can't walk anywhere?
Given that public transport is 0-rated, I can see how the argument was originally made that Motabilty should be 0-rated too.
Any top-ups over & above the PIP-payment level should attract the same taxes that everyone else pays though.
That would be an administrative nightmare though
All expenditure except for fuel goes through Motobility as it is right now - they do all the servicing, tyres, arrange the insurance etc etc. They’re perfectly capable of doing ("this car cost" - "standard car cost") * 20% & billing appropriately.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
That was supposed to be case but everybody and their dog can get it now, you just say you have abad back, ADHD, autistic whatever and it is handed out , more than 700 joining everday or week seemingly. Soon you will be odd man/woman out if you are not getting it.
My sister has to use a wheelchair. She does not qualify for PiP.
There's no mystery about the PIP qualification criteria, they are are here:
To qualify for PIP you need to be scored by the assessor (or tribunal in the case of an appeal) at least 8 points in either the Daily Living Activities criteria or the Mobility Activities criteria (Standard award). 12 or more points in either section gives a higher (Enhanced) award.
Incidentally, to join the Motability scheme, you need an Enhanced Mobility Activities award, then give up that PIP payment and pay any non-refundable lease deposit required by for the car you decide upon.
Assessment is subjective of course - plenty of poor assessments in both directions imo.
Not all wheelchair users will qualify - from a mobility perspective it largely depends how far, if at all, they can walk. (I'm simplifying somewhat, of course.)
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
I suspect that Officer Savage might have been involved...
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
That's fair comment. We'll see what she does.
I have some sympathy with the "Zero VAT should be restricted to adapted vehicles only" point, as that fits with Zero VAT on medical devices (if I buy a blood glucose meter or a home A1C test there is a "VAT exempt" tick-box).
But does that then put a question mark over other zero rated categories? Was it hot sausage rolls that caused the Osborne fuss? Why should those be zero rated when disabled people who have £1000 per month of extra household expenses (typical figure for a household with one disabled person) be forced to pay VAT on a car they have to buy because they can't walk anywhere?
Given that public transport is 0-rated, I can see how the argument was originally made that Motabilty should be 0-rated too.
Any top-ups over & above the PIP-payment level should attract the same taxes that everyone else pays though.
That would be an administrative nightmare though
All expenditure except for fuel goes through Motobility as it is right now - they do all the servicing, tyres, arrange the insurance etc etc. They’re perfectly capable of doing ("this car cost" - "standard car cost") * 20% & billing appropriately.
I'm at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve here. You've just made the lease 20% more expensive and accidentally increased PIP by payments and costs by 20% only some of which would get back to HMRC because those who aren't using the money for Motobility won't be spending the money on Vatable items.
On the other hand I actually think Motobility is being taxed correctly both on the health criteria and on a business basis...
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
An unexpected way "the algorithm" highlights idiots. The stabby train stopped at HuntingDon, a word which occurs on twitter every now and again (councillors, markets, shops etc.). On twitter right now the trending term is HuntingTon - which does not occur much on Twitter at all. Twitter is highlighting because HuntingTon has gone from 1 to 1000 (1000x), versus HuntingDon going from 100 to 5000 (50x). The stories tagged HuntingTon are extremely raced obsessed compared to those about HuntingDon because there is a high correlation with idiots who cannot spell and those who are race obsessed.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Isn't it as grimly straigtforward as he's fallen victim to anthropologist's curse and gone native?
(One of the genuinely interesting things about Farage is that he has managed to hold his line, despite hanging round the right for ages. Goodwin hasn't, Hannan hasn't, Calvin Robinson vanished down the plughole, but Nigel stays just the right side of the line.)
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
Imagine that?! Trapped on a train with a lunatic trying to kill everyone, then banged up for 24 hrs after. He should be compensated quite generously I think
You don't get compensation in such circumstances. Lots of people are arrested and later released without charge.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
I suspect that Officer Savage might have been involved...
I suspect it was dark on the station and people were confused. The unreliability of eye-witness testimony is well known (and yet our justice system continues to rely on it).
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
An unexpected way "the algorithm" highlights idiots. The stabby train stopped at HuntingDon, a word which occurs on twitter every now and again (councillors, markets, shops etc.). On twitter right now the trending term is HuntingTon - which does not occur much on Twitter at all. Twitter is highlighting because HuntingTon has gone from 1 to 1000 (1000x), versus HuntingDon going from 100 to 5000 (50x). The stories tagged HuntingTon are extremely raced obsessed compared to those about HuntingDon because there is a high correlation with idiots who cannot spell and those who are race obsessed.
Beeb's helpful little "where is Cambridgeshire" bit last night called it Huntington, so they've got some idiot to blame
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
I suspect that Officer Savage might have been involved...
I suspect it was dark on the station and people were confused. The unreliability of eye-witness testimony is well known (and yet our justice system continues to rely on it).
I once saw an unfortunate event, a man jumping in front of a train. 15 minutes later, or so, I was giving my statement to the police of what I'd seen. I then overheard another witness give his statement of what he'd seen. These two statements were significantly inconsistent with each other. We were both close. This was all in daylight. I knew eyewitness evidence was poor, but that drove it home.
An unexpected way "the algorithm" highlights idiots. The stabby train stopped at HuntingDon, a word which occurs on twitter every now and again (councillors, markets, shops etc.). On twitter right now the trending term is HuntingTon - which does not occur much on Twitter at all. Twitter is highlighting because HuntingTon has gone from 1 to 1000 (1000x), versus HuntingDon going from 100 to 5000 (50x). The stories tagged HuntingTon are extremely raced obsessed compared to those about HuntingDon because there is a high correlation with idiots who cannot spell and those who are race obsessed.
Beeb's helpful little "where is Cambridgeshire" bit last night called it Huntington, so they've got some idiot to blame
I doubt that they have their A Team on duty on a Saturday night. (Leaving aside its effect on us as potential consumers of news, 24 hour continuous actualityflow is a bit rubbish for the people producing it.)
But it's an interesting effect- perhaps a bit like the way that Nigerian Prince scam emails are badly spelt because they scammers don't want to waste their time on people who read things properly.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Question Time operate a kind of proportional representation, respecting Reform UK's higher vote share (and poll rating) rather than merely going on MP numbers.
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
I suspect that Officer Savage might have been involved...
I suspect it was dark on the station and people were confused. The unreliability of eye-witness testimony is well known (and yet our justice system continues to rely on it).
I once saw an unfortunate event, a man jumping in front of a train. 15 minutes later, or so, I was giving my statement to the police of what I'd seen. I then overheard another witness give his statement of what he'd seen. These two statements were significantly inconsistent with each other. We were both close. This was all in daylight. I knew eyewitness evidence was poor, but that drove it home.
My brother-in-law was a train driver and said they'd argue over who got to drive the train that went past the local psychiatric hospital. Apparently they got about a year off on full pay if there was 'a jumper'.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Question Time operate a kind of proportional representation, respecting Reform UK's higher vote share (and poll rating) rather than merely going on MP numbers.
No-one normal watches Question Time, and I haven't for years.
It's a political activists jamboree, with excessive clapping for crap points and some weird style US hooping and jeering that's crept in too.
An unexpected way "the algorithm" highlights idiots. The stabby train stopped at HuntingDon, a word which occurs on twitter every now and again (councillors, markets, shops etc.). On twitter right now the trending term is HuntingTon - which does not occur much on Twitter at all. Twitter is highlighting because HuntingTon has gone from 1 to 1000 (1000x), versus HuntingDon going from 100 to 5000 (50x). The stories tagged HuntingTon are extremely raced obsessed compared to those about HuntingDon because there is a high correlation with idiots who cannot spell and those who are race obsessed.
yeah same thing happened with Southport / Stockport - was a handy moron indicator
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
Yes, it's not a nice statement.
I would modify your verdict slightly by saying I think it was a 'no true Scotsman' thing, as in no true British person would commit a mass stabbing on a train. But if they'd been white, clearly he wouldn't have questioned their Britishness.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Question Time operate a kind of proportional representation, respecting Reform UK's higher vote share (and poll rating) rather than merely going on MP numbers.
No-one normal watches Question Time, and I haven't for years.
It's a political activists jamboree, with excessive clapping for crap points and some weird style US hooping and jeering that's crept in too.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Ironically, if the LibDems really believed in PR they would surely welcome Reform getting more QT outings, since Reform won half a million more votes than Team Davey.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
I'm not an expert on Goodwin, but on the evidence of that tweet, its hard to think he's not.
No, for the reasons I've already explained. It's only if you're predisposed to reach that conclusion anyway because you're desperate to jump on any evidence that gives you that.
Far too many liberals are, particularly when it's a political opponent who makes an argument against mass immigration; it's much easier to label them as a racist. Then you can take them out and don't have to engage.
As I've said, I think he's disappeared over the side of the map and now think he looks rather silly. Danger of Twitter and of tweeting reflexively in the heat of the moment, particularly when you've got a follower base crying for comment. But I don't think he's a racist.
Oddly, the early reports had the second man as of 'Caribbean origin' but not as black. GBNews was reporting this man as white for some time.
No, he was "Black British of Caribbean origin".
Not according to the reports I saw.
One was called black British, the other 'of Caribbean origin'. This lead to him being described as white by the presenter.
I suspect the differences in description stemmed from the two different police stations that they were detained in.
Those are two distinct ethnicities in the census Not sure if that's the same basis for the police characterisation, and whether it's self-reported or not.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Maybe the Lib Dems are just too boring for television?
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Question Time operate a kind of proportional representation, respecting Reform UK's higher vote share (and poll rating) rather than merely going on MP numbers.
No-one normal watches Question Time, and I haven't for years.
It's a political activists jamboree, with excessive clapping for crap points and some weird style US hooping and jeering that's crept in too.
While I cannot claim to be normal, I would like to note publicly that I haven't watched it in years.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Question Time operate a kind of proportional representation, respecting Reform UK's higher vote share (and poll rating) rather than merely going on MP numbers.
No-one normal watches Question Time, and I haven't for years.
It's a political activists jamboree, with excessive clapping for crap points and some weird style US hooping and jeering that's crept in too.
Liking that for the 'and' in your first sentence ;-)
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Possibly racially profiled and carrying a knife? But not connected? Or perhaps he looks similar to the guy and was similarly dressed? I'd be a bit pissed off if it was me held for 24 hours after an event were I was totally innocent.
I suspect that Officer Savage might have been involved...
I suspect it was dark on the station and people were confused. The unreliability of eye-witness testimony is well known (and yet our justice system continues to rely on it).
Remember, all black people / asian people / chinese look the same, according to Constable Savage and his Reform supporters.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
And it was reported early on that the police had arrested two Black Britons of very similar age and sex, both for attempted murder, and it turned out later one of whom was entirely innocent.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
No doubt. It seems that about 10 years is the expectation though.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
I have a Sun Sparc II and a Sun whatever small workstation in front of me, used as monitor stands. I bought them from Ebay 20-odd years back in order to upskill myself after a long period of unemployment. Then I got a job a week or so later so there was no point. One day I shall pay someone to come and take them to an e-waste recycling facility.
You probably get enough on eBay to make it worth your while. Even if they’re dead; people like to retrofit the cases with something modern.
They're certainly popular with the tinkerer crowd. *BSD runs on them quite the thing, Though probably a good use as a shell for an rpi 5 now...
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
And it was reported early on that the police had arrested two Black Britons of very similar age and sex, both for attempted murder, and it turned out later one of whom was entirely innocent.
See how this works?
I am unclear how that excuses Goodwin?
But I must away for the evening! Perhaps the precise way in which Goodwin is a nutter is not the important point.
An LNER rail staff member who tried to stop the attack remains in life-threatening condition, while five others have now been discharged from hospital The actions of that LNER employee "were nothing short of heroic and undoubtedly saved many people's lives", police say
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
And it was reported early on that the police had arrested two Black Britons of very similar age and sex, both for attempted murder, and it turned out later one of whom was entirely innocent.
See how this works?
I am unclear how that excuses Goodwin?
But I must away for the evening! Perhaps the precise way in which Goodwin is a nutter is not the important point.
Goodwin is just a pound shop Goebbels. Stirring up hatred.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
And it was reported early on that the police had arrested two Black Britons of very similar age and sex, both for attempted murder, and it turned out later one of whom was entirely innocent.
See how this works?
I am unclear how that excuses Goodwin?
He doesn't need to be excused. It's a silly tweet in the heat of the moment where he assumed the authorities knew more but were playing it down, like they were recent migrants who held a technical British passport but had no real loyalty to the country. That's his shtick. Now, he looks silly because he's jumped to a conclusion. And he wasn't the only one.
If he exhibits or starts to exhibit a pattern of racist behaviour suggesting he is in fact one you can be assured I'll be one of the first to say it.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
And it was reported early on that the police had arrested two Black Britons of very similar age and sex, both for attempted murder, and it turned out later one of whom was entirely innocent.
See how this works?
I am unclear how that excuses Goodwin?
But I must away for the evening! Perhaps the precise way in which Goodwin is a nutter is not the important point.
Goodwin is just a pound shop Goebbels. Stirring up hatred.
Absurd. Or actually sort of funny because you've just proved Godwin's Law on Goodwin.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Maybe the Lib Dems are just too boring for television?
You mean they don't make racist comments or stir up race hatred like the fukkers and Jenrick? The BBC deserve to lose the licence fee if that's their raison d'etre now.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Maybe the Lib Dems are just too boring for television?
You mean they don't make racist comments or stir up race hatred like the fukkers and Jenrick? The BBC deserve to lose the licence fee if that's their raison d'etre now.
Ok, maybe it's because of their cracking sense of humour then.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
He appears to think that someone who is Black can't be British. That seems definitionally racist.
That's a bit of a stretch. I suspect he jumped to a conclusion that the authorities knew more than they let on. Whilst they might have held a British passport they might have been a recent immigrant, like Axel Rudakubana, who don't really have much loyalty to the country and for whom the passport is a flag of convenience.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
Axel Rudakubana was born in the UK. He was not an immigrant.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
And it was reported early on that the police had arrested two Black Britons of very similar age and sex, both for attempted murder, and it turned out later one of whom was entirely innocent.
See how this works?
I am unclear how that excuses Goodwin?
He doesn't need to be excused. It's a silly tweet in the heat of the moment where he assumed the authorities knew more but were playing it down, like they were recent migrants who held a technical British passport but had no real loyalty to the country. That's his shtick. Now, he looks silly because he's jumped to a conclusion. And he wasn't the only one.
If he exhibits or starts to exhibit a pattern of racist behaviour suggesting he is in fact one you can be assured I'll be one of the first to say it.
This isn't it.
His tweet was posted at 3.48pm some five hours after police press conference when they said both the suspects were British born.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Maybe the Lib Dems are just too boring for television?
You mean they don't make racist comments or stir up race hatred like the fukkers and Jenrick? The BBC deserve to lose the licence fee if that's their raison d'etre now.
Ok, maybe it's because of their cracking sense of humour then.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Maybe the Lib Dems are just too boring for television?
Have you missed Sir Ed Davey's stunts? They ain't boring.
I’m sure the Beeb are now reporting that only one man is under arrest/a suspect. As a few people wrote last night/today there was prob someone who stepped in or was a target who was in the melee and was arrested just as protocol demanded.
Noted. Goodwin usually makes arguments in a broadly rational manner, using facts, accumulating data, drawing conclusions from grounds and suggesting conclusions which are more or less consistent with a society which has regard for the rule of law.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
The Fukkers with their 5 MPs seem to have a permanent chair. What about the libdems with their 72 seats? I haven't watched QT in a long time because of this blatant imbalance.
Maybe the Lib Dems are just too boring for television?
You mean they don't make racist comments or stir up race hatred like the fukkers and Jenrick? The BBC deserve to lose the licence fee if that's their raison d'etre now.
Ok, maybe it's because of their cracking sense of humour then.
Comments
Even the relatively civilized Matt Goodwin refers on X to:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1985011132654829815
FFS.
The police came to do their thing. Including taking the gun away as evidence.
This caused murmuring among the neighbours. The local sheriff, thinking of re-election, went to his car and got a very special and expensive personal gun. Which he publicly lent to the lady, until hers was returned.
(But of course yes in that the things we respect aren't just for others to defend. However I wasn't really making a point, just wandering around the thinking)
What you can't do is drive legally.
That should not be encouraged even if the antagonists were lowlife scum (as they were in that case)
I suspect Goodwin is now too far right for Farage, who would be wise not to associate with him.
Adze.
Which apply after arrest.
(I more or less never agree with him, his forms of fact selection (which are distortion but common in mainstream politics), or his conclusions. Like other polemicists from the PM down he leaves out facts which are unsuited to him and it isn't all that hard to see thriough him. But that's true of wet centrist liberals too, of which I suppose I am one.)
He is surrounded by people who don't do anything of the sort. People who make up facts, threaten others and act as if they have no regard for the rule of law.
For all his faults, Goodwin is useful for the moment as a measure of how a political debate is developing, and how argument can alter the Overton window.
However his use of quote marks around the word "British" referring to a man born here who has now been released as innocent and uninvolved which I quote further up is just horrible.
This is the Goodwin quote again ICYMI:
10 people suffering a mass stabbing on a train at the hands of two Black "British" men for no apparent reason.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1985011132654829815
The poor people of Monmouthshire have voted against devolution in the three referendums they have been asked and they are still stuck with it. One day they will throw off the shackles of despotic Cardiff rule.
(One of the genuinely interesting things about Farage is that he has managed to hold his line, despite hanging round the right for ages. Goodwin hasn't, Hannan hasn't, Calvin Robinson vanished down the plughole, but Nigel stays just the right side of the line.)
(Agree about Farage. Farage has a touch of genius, but then, so does Trump.)
https://assets.ctfassets.net/vms0u05139aw/pip_descriptors.pdf/93820be60dcc6420191292ed56e2c95f/pip_descriptors.pdf
To qualify for PIP you need to be scored by the assessor (or tribunal in the case of an appeal) at least 8 points in either the Daily Living Activities criteria or the Mobility Activities criteria (Standard award). 12 or more points in either section gives a higher (Enhanced) award.
Incidentally, to join the Motability scheme, you need an Enhanced Mobility Activities award, then give up that PIP payment and pay any non-refundable lease deposit required by for the car you decide upon.
Assessment is subjective of course - plenty of poor assessments in both directions imo.
Not all wheelchair users will qualify - from a mobility perspective it largely depends how far, if at all, they can walk. (I'm simplifying somewhat, of course.)
On the other hand I actually think Motobility is being taxed correctly both on the health criteria and on a business basis...
https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1983853807894458653
There's no denying he's one hell of a politician.
I do think he's gone off the side of the map a bit.
I think that's what Twitter can do to people.. see Carol Voderman, J K Rowling, AC Grayling, Andrew Adonis etc.
But it's an interesting effect- perhaps a bit like the way that Nigerian Prince scam emails are badly spelt because they scammers don't want to waste their time on people who read things properly.
Now, he looks rather silly. But I don't think he's a racist.
I know one when I see one, like Tommy Robinson or the EDL mob.
One was called black British, the other 'of Caribbean origin'. This lead to him being described as white by the presenter.
I suspect the differences in description stemmed from the two different police stations that they were detained in.
It's a political activists jamboree, with excessive clapping for crap points and some weird style US hooping and jeering that's crept in too.
I would modify your verdict slightly by saying I think it was a 'no true Scotsman' thing, as in no true British person would commit a mass stabbing on a train. But if they'd been white, clearly he wouldn't have questioned their Britishness.
Your interpretation of Goodwin's comments is possible, but seems generous. It was reported pretty early on that both men were born in the UK. Goodwin, on other occasions, has shown a very narrow definition of British that basically equates to White British or having been born in Britain.
Far too many liberals are, particularly when it's a political opponent who makes an argument against mass immigration; it's much easier to label them as a racist. Then you can take them out and don't have to engage.
As I've said, I think he's disappeared over the side of the map and now think he looks rather silly. Danger of Twitter and of tweeting reflexively in the heat of the moment, particularly when you've got a follower base crying for comment. But I don't think he's a racist.
Two British nationals. Both culprits.
They are a 32-year-old black British male and 35-year-old British national of Caribbean descent.
They have been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5365882/#Comment_5365882
See how this works?
But I must away for the evening! Perhaps the precise way in which Goodwin is a nutter is not the important point.
An LNER rail staff member who tried to stop the attack remains in life-threatening condition, while five others have now been discharged from hospital
The actions of that LNER employee "were nothing short of heroic and undoubtedly saved many people's lives", police say
... and hope that they pull through.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cm2zvjx1z14t?post=asset:5f1813ca-a71b-4fe9-8865-fe939cb289fe#post
If he exhibits or starts to exhibit a pattern of racist behaviour suggesting he is in fact one you can be assured I'll be one of the first to say it.
This isn't it.
I'll be glued to the set.