She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
you either believe that foreigners are human too or you don't
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
Strange comment. I rather think being a devout Muslim would not be, on balance, a vote winner - especially with those inclined to Reform. And if it were a lie, she'd be found out in no time.
Some people think I am a devout Muslim because I've never drunk the devil's buttermilk.
Those people who know me know I am a very good Muslim if you ignore my constant whoring and gambling and the fact I only pray twice year.
The problem with Mahmood's intervention on immigration, presumably the trigger for this admiring assessment - is that it's a pander, but a pander to people who have no intention of voting Labour. So you piss off your possible supporters while adding to the intractable policy mess.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out there…
Vaguely concerning, methane being created by back street chemists. It’s pretty noxious.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
'Devout Muslim/Christian', 'committed Christian (less often used of Muslims)' seem to me useless expressions designed often to mean 'odd' or to identify the sort of religious person who wants to disqualify the unwashed and unrighteous. I am a Christian, and feel unchristianly inclined to disembowel anyone who called me 'devout'. Not that such an occurrence is likely.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
The edge case, though, is that the voters decide who gets the right to vote; so it could vote (entirely legitimately) to strip the vote from all non-white people.
Do you sit back and say "well, it's the democratic will of the people."?
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
1. Voters are individuals and cannot individually ensure the outcome of any election.
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
The edge case, though, is that the voters decide who gets the right to vote; so it could vote (entirely legitimately) to strip the vote from all non-white people.
Do you sit back and say "well, it's the democratic will of the people."?
Courts can do the same thing. Dred Scott for example.
In a democracy you can at least vote for a new law.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out there…
Vaguely concerning, methane being created by back street chemists. It’s pretty noxious.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
The edge case, though, is that the voters decide who gets the right to vote; so it could vote (entirely legitimately) to strip the vote from all non-white people.
Do you sit back and say "well, it's the democratic will of the people."?
Ultimately yes you do. Again, it's up to politicians to convince people it's a poor idea.
Fundamentally you either believe in the will of the people or you don't. ECHR/HRA rulings are achieving the very opposite of what it was intended to do, Europe is becoming more fragmented and hostile than at any point since WW2 precisely because the ECHR is making is close to impossible for European countries to control their borders or to deport foreign criminals and illegals. The surge in nationalism is a direct consequence of blocking deportations, crimes by foreigners and illegal immigrants. Not having control of the border and handing it to a bunch of liberal foreign judges who don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions and are completely unaccountable to any European voters is untenable and sooner or later something will break.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system. No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2...
H2O + CO2 = CH4 + 2O2. What the arse happens to the excess O2? It sounds good but you don't want too much of it in the atmosphere: there'll be a hell of a lot more fires and oxidation and I don't want the planet to go all Apollo I.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Farage has never been caught out being as dodgy as f*** over a property purchase.
His hands and his conscience are clean.
This is a key point. When you get *caught* doing something dodgy and have to resign, it's unlikely to be for ever but you do need spend some time out before you come back. You can't be prime minister unless you have come back first - I would think you need to be out for at least a year
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system. No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2...
H2O + CO2 = CH4 + 2O2. What the arse happens to the excess O2? It sounds good but you don't want too much of it in the atmosphere: there'll be a hell of a lot more fires and oxidation and I don't want the planet to go all Apollo I.
Er... it would get used up when you burn the methane, shirley?
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
I’ve ended up with a Royal British Legion lanyard….
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
The edge case, though, is that the voters decide who gets the right to vote; so it could vote (entirely legitimately) to strip the vote from all non-white people.
Do you sit back and say "well, it's the democratic will of the people."?
Courts can do the same thing. Dred Scott for example.
In a democracy you can at least vote for a new law.
The problem with written Constitutions such as the US has (and ECHR to a much lesser degree) is that lawyers will tell you what the law is and to hell with the democratic will of the people. I think we need to be very careful about how much of the ultimate say we give to lawyers. Speaking personally, I don't trust them. The current US SC is a case in point.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out there…
Vaguely concerning, methane being created by back street chemists. It’s pretty noxious.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
you either believe that foreigners are human too or you don't
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
1. Voters are individuals and cannot individually ensure the outcome of any election.
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
I'm referring to the idiot million Tory voters who sat on their hands to "punish the government" having been caught up in a nonsense media campaign against the party.
Again, would a party who proposed such a policy get into power with that manifesto commitment, wouldn't the HoL stop such a law from being passed without it being a manifesto commitment and in the event they managed to ram it through anyway the protests would be unimaginable.
It really boils down to whether or not you trust voters and really all of those people arguing in favour of the ECHR are really saying they don't trust voters and feel that they need an unaccountable foreign court to protect them from policies that people might like to vote in favour of.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
The edge case, though, is that the voters decide who gets the right to vote; so it could vote (entirely legitimately) to strip the vote from all non-white people.
Do you sit back and say "well, it's the democratic will of the people."?
Ultimately yes you do. Again, it's up to politicians to convince people it's a poor idea.
Fundamentally you either believe in the will of the people or you don't. ECHR/HRA rulings are achieving the very opposite of what it was intended to do, Europe is becoming more fragmented and hostile than at any point since WW2 precisely because the ECHR is making is close to impossible for European countries to control their borders or to deport foreign criminals and illegals. The surge in nationalism is a direct consequence of blocking deportations, crimes by foreigners and illegal immigrants. Not having control of the border and handing it to a bunch of liberal foreign judges who don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions and are completely unaccountable to any European voters is untenable and sooner or later something will break.
I don't understand this position unless you're arguing for direct democracy. Parliament could vote for us to leave the EHCR at any time, it just doesn't choose to (and didn't with a massive Conservative majority either). This isn't a failure of our current democratic system at all.
If you are arguing for "the will of the people" to be the arbiter of everything then fair enough, as long your willing to respect that will on issues such as Gaza too.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
Dunno, I’d be as concerned over a country (or union of countries) that had stomped on Eastern Europe, murderered several thousand of Poland’s intelligentsia & officer class and raped & murdered their way across Germany being on the committee of good guys. I’d be looking for any relatively civilised counterbalance to that.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
I’ve ended up with a Royal British Legion lanyard….
My last lanyard at work was a Pride lanyard 👍 before that it was a Sunflower lanyard, I didn’t know what it meant, a colleague gave it me as a joke !
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
Dunno, I’d be as concerned over a country (or union of countries) that had stomped on Eastern Europe, murderered several thousand of Poland’s intelligentsia & officer class and raped & murdered their way across Germany being on the committee of good guys. I’d be looking for any relatively civilised counterbalance to that.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
I think you'll find it's not making stuff up. AI says this when asked if Denmark's policy has ever been challenged under the ECHR:
Yes, Denmark's asylum and immigration policies have been legally challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with some challenges leading to a finding of violation by the court . Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC. Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention. The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14. Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants. The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
Which sounds to me like Denmark ignored the Court's rulings. So do you think Labour should also ignore its rulings?
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
I wanted to comment on this excellent post.
The truth is even in proportional or semi-proportional posts there tends to be a bloc of "the left" parties and a bloc of "the right" parties and generally the parties in the two blocs work together but proportionality enables them to retain their identity.
It doesn't always happen - after decades of being the two main parties leading each bloc, the Social Democrats and Venstre in Denmark joined forces in Government and we know the CDU/CSU and SPD have been in coalition.
Some parties move between the two blocs - Winston Peters and New Zealand First being one example and the German FDP being another and of course the Liberal Democrats here allied with the Conservatives from 2010-15 but the antecedent Liberal Party also supported a Labour minority Government in the 1970s.
It can be happened the likelihood is we will revert back to the mean - a centre right party, a centre left party and some other parties in the middle or on the extremes - but that's not certain. I don't see Reform, for example, as a "right wing" party - yes, it's anti-immigration and socially conservative but those were elements in the Labour and Conservative Parties not so long ago. Arguably, what we have with Farage is a recognisable amalgam of what once was - the ultimate throwback.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
I’ve ended up with a Royal British Legion lanyard….
My last lanyard at work was a Pride lanyard 👍 before that it was a Sunflower lanyard, I didn’t know what it meant, a colleague gave it me as a joke !
My last one, with the pass for Dundee HC, was the Lion King. Now that's quality.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
1. Voters are individuals and cannot individually ensure the outcome of any election.
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
Parliament is not sovereign. Sovereignty resides in the Crown (as exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament).
If the Crown-in-Parliament tried to abolish elections then I suspect the courts would step in (as we saw with the prorogument case). Failing that I would hope that the Crown itself would reassert its theoretical rights
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system. No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2...
H2O + CO2 = CH4 + 2O2. What the arse happens to the excess O2? It sounds good but you don't want too much of it in the atmosphere: there'll be a hell of a lot more fires and oxidation and I don't want the planet to go all Apollo I.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
Having observed the courts in the UK, are you really saying that a UK court will go "Thumbs up, chaps" to things like *evicting public housing tenants or even scheduling blocks for demolition for being too full of foreigners*?
To start with, much of Tower Hamlets social housing will be under the cosh.
A lot of the blame is put on John Birt. The Tories probably liked him because of his background in commercial television but he was something of a revolutionary when it came to his attitude to journalism.
Labour hire people who make the BBC biased and the Tories hire people who (intentionally or otherwise) make it s***.
Interesting article, thank you. Although I agree with the guy in the comments who points out that Victorian journalists were simply not impartial. But the point of the article - that journalists should restrict themselves to “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “how” and leave the "why" to others is sound. I suspect the BBC will sadly not do this, but instead report two competing sources on "why" and call it "balance". Which will make things worse, not better.
However much the BBC restricted itself to absolutely factual matters, making no judgments and offering no nicely balanced opinions however tentative, the truly gigantic bias remains untouched. The real biases of the media are in story selection, story priority, subject selection, treating some geographical areas as being more important than others.
Example: anyone innocent of inherent bias would assume from listening a bit to the BBC over the last couple of years but not paying specially close attention, that there was a humanly highly significant conflict going on in Gaza of global significance and catastrophic consequence over a massive area. About Sudan they would conclude that whatever is going on it isn't very important and is little more than a little local trouble. About eastern Congo they would assume it doesn't exist or if it does it generates no news of interest.
They would also assume that the major issues around refugees and asylum seekers is only a problem for a small number of rich countries.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
Are they? What, all of them? Do you have statistics to back that up? Or is that just a generalisation?
People who don’t wear lanyards for work are privileged? Is that true? Is a lanyard the definition of the “working person” ‘we’ve been so desperate to find? What happens if you work but don’t have a lanyard? What then? Is a lanyard compulsory to be this aforementioned “working person’? My word. What a rabbit hole…a pity George Orwell didn’t foresee that.
Or is it dickheads that want to make a not so subtle political point insist on wearing a lanyard that celebrates some perceived repressed class?
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
1. Voters are individuals and cannot individually ensure the outcome of any election.
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
I'm referring to the idiot million Tory voters who sat on their hands to "punish the government" having been caught up in a nonsense media campaign against the party.
Again, would a party who proposed such a policy get into power with that manifesto commitment, wouldn't the HoL stop such a law from being passed without it being a manifesto commitment and in the event they managed to ram it through anyway the protests would be unimaginable.
It really boils down to whether or not you trust voters and really all of those people arguing in favour of the ECHR are really saying they don't trust voters and feel that they need an unaccountable foreign court to protect them from policies that people might like to vote in favour of.
You think a party that planned to cancel future elections would put that in its manifesto?
It's not whether I trust the voters, it's whether I trust the parties.
Would you have trusted the voters in Germany in the early 1930s?
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
She sounds like a Muslim version of Ann Widdecombe or Therese Coffey as far as her personal life goes, ie she doesn't have one and is very religious and celibate
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
I’ve ended up with a Royal British Legion lanyard….
My last lanyard at work was a Pride lanyard 👍 before that it was a Sunflower lanyard, I didn’t know what it meant, a colleague gave it me as a joke !
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
I’ve ended up with a Royal British Legion lanyard….
My last lanyard at work was a Pride lanyard 👍 before that it was a Sunflower lanyard, I didn’t know what it meant, a colleague gave it me as a joke !
My last one, with the pass for Dundee HC, was the Lion King. Now that's quality.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
Not even that. In general the lanyard holds an ID so the employer doesn't want to be identified on it as a security risk if the lanyard is lost, although it does depend on the employer. The lanyards in my place of work mostly referenced obscure IT projects or statements about customer service. Some people had rainbow lanyards who are mostly gay themselves. I had one because I like the rainbow colours (literally gay!) so maybe I'm one of those rare people who could be included in Starkey's insult. But as it's completely meaningless, what's the point?
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
1. Voters are individuals and cannot individually ensure the outcome of any election.
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
Parliament is not sovereign. Sovereignty resides in the Crown (as exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament).
If the Crown-in-Parliament tried to abolish elections then I suspect the courts would step in (as we saw with the prorogument case). Failing that I would hope that the Crown itself would reassert its theoretical rights
This remains unknown and unknowable, and is different from the proroguing case which, the SC decided, was about what government, not parliament was up to.
I don't think there is any case yet in which the courts are asked to strike down (as opposed to interpret) a statute with royal assent on the basis that the act itself is improper or unconstitutional. There are lots of precedents about how courts can read statutes and provide a path through contradictions, confusions, conflicts with other statutes, and stuff that has no clear meaning.
Personally I hope the SC would find a way. But it's like nuclear retaliation. The SC keeps this power in its silos, and keeps the power to overrule itself if necessary, but a power that exists so that you don't have to use it.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
I think you'll find it's not making stuff up. AI says this when asked if Denmark's policy has ever been challenged under the ECHR:
Yes, Denmark's asylum and immigration policies have been legally challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with some challenges leading to a finding of violation by the court . Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC. Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention. The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14. Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants. The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
Which sounds to me like Denmark ignored the Court's rulings. So do you think Labour should also ignore its rulings?
You problem there is that AI has a habit of generating invalid court cases because it looks for plausible answers rather than accurate ones.
However given that we threw a British citizen out of the country - I don't see us ignoring a few ECtHR will be a problem...
A lot of the blame is put on John Birt. The Tories probably liked him because of his background in commercial television but he was something of a revolutionary when it came to his attitude to journalism.
Labour hire people who make the BBC biased and the Tories hire people who (intentionally or otherwise) make it s***.
Interesting article, thank you. Although I agree with the guy in the comments who points out that Victorian journalists were simply not impartial. But the point of the article - that journalists should restrict themselves to “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “how” and leave the "why" to others is sound. I suspect the BBC will sadly not do this, but instead report two competing sources on "why" and call it "balance". Which will make things worse, not better.
However much the BBC restricted itself to absolutely factual matters, making no judgments and offering no nicely balanced opinions however tentative, the truly gigantic bias remains untouched. The real biases of the media are in story selection, story priority, subject selection, treating some geographical areas as being more important than others.
Example: anyone innocent of inherent bias would assume from listening a bit to the BBC over the last couple of years but not paying specially close attention, that there was a humanly highly significant conflict going on in Gaza of global significance and catastrophic consequence over a massive area. About Sudan they would conclude that whatever is going on it isn't very important and is little more than a little local trouble. About eastern Congo they would assume it doesn't exist or if it does it generates no news of interest.
They would also assume that the major issues around refugees and asylum seekers is only a problem for a small number of rich countries.
That's bias.
Indeed. I'm not sure what the cure is. To be fully unbiased it'll have to turn itself into something like Reuters or AP, only fact-only and with a truly global reach - a properly reliable source, so to speak. I would personally like to see such a thing - and perhaps that's what the BBC should evolve into - but it'll take a shedload of cash and deny the bien-pensant of something to talk about, so it won't happen.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
Do they need to send you a bill ? Surely you declare it via your accountant and pay the tax they calculated
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
I think you'll find it's not making stuff up. AI says this when asked if Denmark's policy has ever been challenged under the ECHR:
Yes, Denmark's asylum and immigration policies have been legally challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with some challenges leading to a finding of violation by the court . Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC. Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention. The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14. Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants. The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
Which sounds to me like Denmark ignored the Court's rulings. So do you think Labour should also ignore its rulings?
You're saying the opposite of Malmesbury. He's saying "the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds". You're saying there were.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
That wasn't my point. There isn't a "new" scandal here. It was that she pops up and does media, widely reported as looking to setup leadership and oh look the same paper who got loads of info about her tax affairs again know about her tax affairs.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
1. Voters are individuals and cannot individually ensure the outcome of any election.
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
Parliament is not sovereign. Sovereignty resides in the Crown (as exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament).
If the Crown-in-Parliament tried to abolish elections then I suspect the courts would step in (as we saw with the prorogument case). Failing that I would hope that the Crown itself would reassert its theoretical rights
This remains unknown and unknowable, and is different from the proroguing case which, the SC decided, was about what government, not parliament was up to.
I don't think there is any case yet in which the courts are asked to strike down (as opposed to interpret) a statute with royal assent on the basis that the act itself is improper or unconstitutional. There are lots of precedents about how courts can read statutes and provide a path through contradictions, confusions, conflicts with other statutes, and stuff that has no clear meaning.
Personally I hope the SC would find a way. But it's like nuclear retaliation. The SC keeps this power in its silos, and keeps the power to overrule itself if necessary, but a power that exists so that you don't have to use it.
The government *is* the Crown-in-Parliament. That’s why it exercises the royal prerogative.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
Do they need to send you a bill ? Surely you declare it via your accountant and pay the tax they calculated
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
I think you'll find it's not making stuff up. AI says this when asked if Denmark's policy has ever been challenged under the ECHR:
Yes, Denmark's asylum and immigration policies have been legally challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with some challenges leading to a finding of violation by the court . Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC. Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention. The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14. Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants. The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
Which sounds to me like Denmark ignored the Court's rulings. So do you think Labour should also ignore its rulings?
You're saying the opposite of Malmesbury. He's saying "the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds". You're saying there were.
The *Danish* courts didn't block the implementation. I think the UK courts would.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
ISTR a LD (e) leader was ousted because he was a Christian.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
That wasn't my point. There isn't a "new" scandal here. It was that she pops up and does media, widely reported as looking to setup leadership and oh look the same paper who got loads of info about her tax affairs again know about her tax affairs.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
Checks to see who the First and Second Lords of the Treasury are, who are ultimately responsible for HMRC.
No way would Sir Keir or Rachel or their staff would leak stuff like this.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
Also I’m pretty sure the lanyard despisers would be the last people to insist on correct forms of address, titles and honorifics. David Starkey CBE for example. I’m sure he was relieved about all those doctorates and establishment baubles withdrawn after he did a racism.
I’ve ended up with a Royal British Legion lanyard….
My last lanyard at work was a Pride lanyard 👍 before that it was a Sunflower lanyard, I didn’t know what it meant, a colleague gave it me as a joke !
At my last school, we had colour coded lanyards:
Grey - permanent staff Blue - temporary/casual/visiting staff with a DBS check Red - visitors without a DBS check.
Anyone with no lanyard or a red lanyard who was not with a member of staff wearing a grey lanyard was to be politely intercepted and escorted to reception.
Simple and effective. The person who came up with that deserved a nice medal on their lanyard.
Oh, and it also meant there was no chance of difficulties or tensions over multi-coloured lanyards, as they would have been a breach of our safeguarding policy.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
Do they need to send you a bill ? Surely you declare it via your accountant and pay the tax they calculated
A lot of the blame is put on John Birt. The Tories probably liked him because of his background in commercial television but he was something of a revolutionary when it came to his attitude to journalism.
Labour hire people who make the BBC biased and the Tories hire people who (intentionally or otherwise) make it s***.
Interesting article, thank you. Although I agree with the guy in the comments who points out that Victorian journalists were simply not impartial. But the point of the article - that journalists should restrict themselves to “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “how” and leave the "why" to others is sound. I suspect the BBC will sadly not do this, but instead report two competing sources on "why" and call it "balance". Which will make things worse, not better.
However much the BBC restricted itself to absolutely factual matters, making no judgments and offering no nicely balanced opinions however tentative, the truly gigantic bias remains untouched. The real biases of the media are in story selection, story priority, subject selection, treating some geographical areas as being more important than others.
Example: anyone innocent of inherent bias would assume from listening a bit to the BBC over the last couple of years but not paying specially close attention, that there was a humanly highly significant conflict going on in Gaza of global significance and catastrophic consequence over a massive area. About Sudan they would conclude that whatever is going on it isn't very important and is little more than a little local trouble. About eastern Congo they would assume it doesn't exist or if it does it generates no news of interest.
They would also assume that the major issues around refugees and asylum seekers is only a problem for a small number of rich countries.
That's bias.
Indeed. I'm not sure what the cure is. To be fully unbiased it'll have to turn itself into something like Reuters or AP, only fact-only and with a truly global reach - a properly reliable source, so to speak. I would personally like to see such a thing - and perhaps that's what the BBC should evolve into - but it'll take a shedload of cash and deny the bien-pensant of something to talk about, so it won't happen.
Even then, there is still the editorial choice of which facts to broadcast and which to leave on the cutting room floor. And what happens with facts that a few holdouts are still contesting? Or stories where there aren't many uncontested facts?
Fully unbiased news is either an ideal to aspire to, or a stick to beat an enemy with. The gradation goes from "broadly trustworthy" to "utter propaganda". The bad seeking to destroy the good because it's not perfect is a pretty grim joke.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
Do they need to send you a bill ? Surely you declare it via your accountant and pay the tax they calculated
Interest too?
The accountant should be able to work that out too. There is set interest rates per year. AIUI.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
ISTR a LD (e) leader was ousted because he was a Christian.
It was more that he led the Lib Dems to their second worst election result when the Tories ran the the worst election campaign in history.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
I think you'll find it's not making stuff up. AI says this when asked if Denmark's policy has ever been challenged under the ECHR:
Yes, Denmark's asylum and immigration policies have been legally challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with some challenges leading to a finding of violation by the court . Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC. Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention. The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14. Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants. The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
Which sounds to me like Denmark ignored the Court's rulings. So do you think Labour should also ignore its rulings?
You're saying the opposite of Malmesbury. He's saying "the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds". You're saying there were.
Malmesbury was saying that Denmark implemented its policy without falling foul of the ECHR, but that the UK would not be able to implement the same policy due (I assume) to a greater deference by our courts to the convention.
My research has shown that Denmark did fall foul of the ECHR - it seems they ignored the rulings of the court and pressed ahead.
That strengthens the point made by both Malmesbury and myself that the Denmark policy is likely to face legal challenges under the ECHR. And my point to Roger earlier that when this happens its likely to make the Tories ECHR policy look prescient.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
That wasn't my point. There isn't a "new" scandal here. It was that she pops up and does media, widely reported as looking to setup leadership and oh look the same paper who got loads of info about her tax affairs again know about her tax affairs.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
Checks to see who the First and Second Lords of the Treasury are, who are ultimately responsible for HMRC.
No way would Sir Keir or Rachel or their staff would leak stuff like this.
Well we established this week that nobody in #10 ever leaks against political opponents. Now when they aren't physically in #10, perhaps in Portcullis House, then loose lips can occur.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
That wasn't my point. There isn't a "new" scandal here. It was that she pops up and does media, widely reported as looking to setup leadership and oh look the same paper who got loads of info about her tax affairs again know about her tax affairs.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
It is fascinating the way that intimate lives of top politicians are surveilled and the uses made of it.
When the security cameras in Matt Hancock's office were used to spy on him, and the result leaked, none seemed surprised.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
I think part of what made Judgement At Nuremberg the best I've seen, was exactly that it examined one of the "sideshow" trials.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
That wasn't my point. There isn't a "new" scandal here. It was that she pops up and does media, widely reported as looking to setup leadership and oh look the same paper who got loads of info about her tax affairs again know about her tax affairs.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
It is fascinating the way that intimate lives of top politicians are surveilled and the uses made of it.
When the security cameras in Matt Hancock's office were used to spy on him, and the result leaked, none seemed surprised.
Given that with one rather notable exception(!) his staff all hated him, no we were not surprised.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
You're just making stuff up. That is not conducive to sensible betting.
I think you'll find it's not making stuff up. AI says this when asked if Denmark's policy has ever been challenged under the ECHR:
Yes, Denmark's asylum and immigration policies have been legally challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with some challenges leading to a finding of violation by the court . Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC. Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention. The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14. Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants. The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
Which sounds to me like Denmark ignored the Court's rulings. So do you think Labour should also ignore its rulings?
You're saying the opposite of Malmesbury. He's saying "the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds". You're saying there were.
Malmesbury was saying that Denmark implemented its policy without falling foul of the ECHR, but that the UK would not be able to implement the same policy due (I assume) to a greater deference by our courts to the convention.
My research has shown that Denmark did fall foul of the ECHR - it seems they ignored the rulings of the court and pressed ahead.
That strengthens the point made by both Malmesbury and myself that the Denmark policy is likely to face legal challenges under the ECHR. And my point to Roger earlier that when this happens its likely to make the Tories ECHR policy look prescient.
What I was suggesting was that in the UK, the UK courts will charge at this. In Denmark, the Danish courts did not.
The cases upheld against Denmark were largely in the European Court of Human Rights, I believe.
This is due to a different socio-legal culture between our two countries.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
ISTR a LD (e) leader was ousted because he was a Christian.
He was also really quite rubbish. I only have a faint memory of anything to do with him being a Christian. But I have very strong memories of him being, well, really rubbish.
The Telegraph has learnt that the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne is still to pay a single penny of the stamp duty bill to HM Revenue and Customs. Sources close to Ms Rayner said HMRC had yet to send her a final bill.
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
She hasn't paid a bill HMRC haven't yet sent her? Outrageous!
That wasn't my point. There isn't a "new" scandal here. It was that she pops up and does media, widely reported as looking to setup leadership and oh look the same paper who got loads of info about her tax affairs again know about her tax affairs.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
It is fascinating the way that intimate lives of top politicians are surveilled and the uses made of it.
When the security cameras in Matt Hancock's office were used to spy on him, and the result leaked, none seemed surprised.
Given that with one rather notable exception(!) his staff all hated him, no we were not surprised.
It was rather interesting that the camera feed isn't recorded to a secured server with an access log etc.
If nothing else, that would be tremendously useful for spies. The camera feed apparently includes audio
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
ISTR a LD (e) leader was ousted because he was a Christian.
Evangelical Christian, Davey is C of E, even Farage calls himself a Christian. Starmer is also the first openly atheist PM we have had since Callaghan
I never reached the lanyard wearing cadre of the boy scouts. The woggle was my level
Might have been cos you weren't a Sea Scout?
I believe they are the only ones who have a lanyard qua official badge.
Many a Scout would have had one anyway but not as uniform, it being a traditional way of carrying one's clasp knife (with or without marline spike: I had one of the latter in my sailing days complete with pukka lanyard, in a happier and more innocent era).
Edit: but officially I didn't get higher than woggle and one of those general badges for a range of skills in one package (our troop leader not bothering with badges for things like stamp collecting or sports).
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
I've never quite understood the phrase. Does it just mean 'worker scum'? When I first saw it in an article I took it to mean 'People who had access to special offices, so needed ID', but then it seemed to morph into just.... worker scum?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
I've never quite understood the phrase. Does it just mean 'worker scum'? When I first saw it in an article I took it to mean 'People who had access to special offices, so needed ID', but then it seemed to morph into just.... worker scum?
IT means workers. It appears to mean 'worker scum' to certain people. Rather reflects on them.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
ISTR a LD (e) leader was ousted because he was a Christian.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
I've never quite understood the phrase. Does it just mean 'worker scum'? When I first saw it in an article I took it to mean 'People who had access to special offices, so needed ID', but then it seemed to morph into just.... worker scum?
I think it supposed to refer to the nebulous crowd of advisors, third parties etc who don't seem to actually work in various places, but wear their access to The Top as sign of their power.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = needed a lanyard and just happened to pick it up from reception on a day they were given out
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
Comments
Those people who know me know I am a very good Muslim if you ignore my constant whoring and gambling and the fact I only pray twice year.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/characters/nm0006890/
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
Do you sit back and say "well, it's the democratic will of the people."?
2. We also rely on some form of constitution (a rather hazy set of conventions in the case of the UK) to control the rules for democracy. Could a party win an election and pass a law to ban further elections? If not, then is parliament really supreme?
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
In a democracy you can at least vote for a new law.
Fundamentally you either believe in the will of the people or you don't. ECHR/HRA rulings are achieving the very opposite of what it was intended to do, Europe is becoming more fragmented and hostile than at any point since WW2 precisely because the ECHR is making is close to impossible for European countries to control their borders or to deport foreign criminals and illegals. The surge in nationalism is a direct consequence of blocking deportations, crimes by foreigners and illegal immigrants. Not having control of the border and handing it to a bunch of liberal foreign judges who don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions and are completely unaccountable to any European voters is untenable and sooner or later something will break.
‘ 🇦🇷 Extremely disappointed in Argentina.
So many talented players, yet persist with dull shapes that don't work.
Scotland playing what's in front of them.’
https://x.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1990092911300542887?s=61
I've got a wee few £ on Scott, Wax and Riley.
Hopefully one will turn into a nice trading bet etc...
Again, would a party who proposed such a policy get into power with that manifesto commitment, wouldn't the HoL stop such a law from being passed without it being a manifesto commitment and in the event they managed to ram it through anyway the protests would be unimaginable.
It really boils down to whether or not you trust voters and really all of those people arguing in favour of the ECHR are really saying they don't trust voters and feel that they need an unaccountable foreign court to protect them from policies that people might like to vote in favour of.
If you are arguing for "the will of the people" to be the arbiter of everything then fair enough, as long your willing to respect that will on issues such as Gaza too.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
. Cases have concerned issues like family reunification, expulsion of settled migrants, and the "28-year rule" for attachment to Denmark, note HUDOC.
Examples of ECHR challenges
Family reunification: Cases have been brought arguing that refusals to grant family reunification break Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.
The *BIAO v. DENMARK* case concerned the "28-year rule," and the applicants claimed the rule was discriminatory and indirectly violated their rights under the Convention.
The *M.A. v. DENMARK* case also involved a challenge to a family reunification refusal based on Article 8 and Article 14.
Expulsion: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled on cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants.
The ECtHR has found violations of the Convention in cases involving the expulsion of settled migrants, specifically in September 2023 and with the *Abdi v. Denmark* case in 2021.
The truth is even in proportional or semi-proportional posts there tends to be a bloc of "the left" parties and a bloc of "the right" parties and generally the parties in the two blocs work together but proportionality enables them to retain their identity.
It doesn't always happen - after decades of being the two main parties leading each bloc, the Social Democrats and Venstre in Denmark joined forces in Government and we know the CDU/CSU and SPD have been in coalition.
Some parties move between the two blocs - Winston Peters and New Zealand First being one example and the German FDP being another and of course the Liberal Democrats here allied with the Conservatives from 2010-15 but the antecedent Liberal Party also supported a Labour minority Government in the 1970s.
It can be happened the likelihood is we will revert back to the mean - a centre right party, a centre left party and some other parties in the middle or on the extremes - but that's not certain. I don't see Reform, for example, as a "right wing" party - yes, it's anti-immigration and socially conservative but those were elements in the Labour and Conservative Parties not so long ago. Arguably, what we have with Farage is a recognisable amalgam of what once was - the ultimate throwback.
If the Crown-in-Parliament tried to abolish elections then I suspect the courts would step in (as we saw with the prorogument case). Failing that I would hope that the Crown itself would reassert its theoretical rights
To start with, much of Tower Hamlets social housing will be under the cosh.
Example: anyone innocent of inherent bias would assume from listening a bit to the BBC over the last couple of years but not paying specially close attention, that there was a humanly highly significant conflict going on in Gaza of global significance and catastrophic consequence over a massive area. About Sudan they would conclude that whatever is going on it isn't very important and is little more than a little local trouble. About eastern Congo they would assume it doesn't exist or if it does it generates no news of interest.
They would also assume that the major issues around refugees and asylum seekers is only a problem for a small number of rich countries.
That's bias.
People who don’t wear lanyards for work are privileged? Is that true? Is a lanyard the definition of the “working person” ‘we’ve been so desperate to find? What happens if you work but don’t have a lanyard? What then? Is a lanyard compulsory to be this aforementioned “working person’? My word. What a rabbit hole…a pity George Orwell didn’t foresee that.
Or is it dickheads that want to make a not so subtle political point insist on wearing a lanyard that celebrates some perceived repressed class?
It's not whether I trust the voters, it's whether I trust the parties.
Would you have trusted the voters in Germany in the early 1930s?
I don't think there is any case yet in which the courts are asked to strike down (as opposed to interpret) a statute with royal assent on the basis that the act itself is improper or unconstitutional. There are lots of precedents about how courts can read statutes and provide a path through contradictions, confusions, conflicts with other statutes, and stuff that has no clear meaning.
Personally I hope the SC would find a way. But it's like nuclear retaliation. The SC keeps this power in its silos, and keeps the power to overrule itself if necessary, but a power that exists so that you don't have to use it.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1990067956449980462
However given that we threw a British citizen out of the country - I don't see us ignoring a few ECtHR will be a problem...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/16/labour-angela-rayner-yet-to-pay-40k-stamp-duty-bill/
From the same source who stitched her up over her tax affairs? Who would know such information? Funny how this story appears as soon as she goes on manoeuvres.
There can be very few people who knew about her original arrangements and now this.
No way would Sir Keir or Rachel or their staff would leak stuff like this.
Grey - permanent staff
Blue - temporary/casual/visiting staff with a DBS check
Red - visitors without a DBS check.
Anyone with no lanyard or a red lanyard who was not with a member of staff wearing a grey lanyard was to be politely intercepted and escorted to reception.
Simple and effective. The person who came up with that deserved a nice medal on their lanyard.
Oh, and it also meant there was no chance of difficulties or tensions over multi-coloured lanyards, as they would have been a breach of our safeguarding policy.
It's compounding interest.
Fully unbiased news is either an ideal to aspire to, or a stick to beat an enemy with. The gradation goes from "broadly trustworthy" to "utter propaganda". The bad seeking to destroy the good because it's not perfect is a pretty grim joke.
My research has shown that Denmark did fall foul of the ECHR - it seems they ignored the rulings of the court and pressed ahead.
That strengthens the point made by both Malmesbury and myself that the Denmark policy is likely to face legal challenges under the ECHR. And my point to Roger earlier that when this happens its likely to make the Tories ECHR policy look prescient.
When the security cameras in Matt Hancock's office were used to spy on him, and the result leaked, none seemed surprised.
The cases upheld against Denmark were largely in the European Court of Human Rights, I believe.
This is due to a different socio-legal culture between our two countries.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
If nothing else, that would be tremendously useful for spies. The camera feed apparently includes audio
I believe they are the only ones who have a lanyard qua official badge.
Many a Scout would have had one anyway but not as uniform, it being a traditional way of carrying one's clasp knife (with or without marline spike: I had one of the latter in my sailing days complete with pukka lanyard, in a happier and more innocent era).
Edit: but officially I didn't get higher than woggle and one of those general badges for a range of skills in one package (our troop leader not bothering with badges for things like stamp collecting or sports).
That would be such a bore, man.
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Or if not, Jodl it.
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = needed a lanyard and just happened to pick it up from reception on a day they were given out
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
When something's doenitz done.