Looks horribly like the Swiss fire - inflammable ceiling?
Thing to remember - if you see the start of a fire, leave. Flashover and smoke spread with incredible speed in the later stages of a fire. Almost like an explosion.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
If he doesn't believe they are lies, then what are we back to?
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
He comes across as being a narcissist.
He does not seem to give one iota about the truth.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
If he doesn't believe they are lies, then what are we back to?
Clear evidence of dementia?
What kind of a communistic prevert thinks that reality is right, when the Donald says otherwise?
In apolitical news, tgere is an absolutely blood red sun over South Manchester. The moors are on fure,and the smoke is turning the aky and the light all sorts of improbable colours. I can't properly do it justice in a photo, which just sees a bright object and corrects it back to the sun. But it is weird and beautiful. This is the best photo I can manage:
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
It is so hard not to speculate when things like this are published.
I hope this gets to court very rapidly so that the timeline of events gets placed on to the record and an account of why he acted in this way (assuming he did) is put out so we can all understand what happened.
At this stage, it is hard to see what the motive would be. No one drives 300 miles to kill a politician without having a reason.
In apolitical news, tgere is an absolutely blood red sun over South Manchester. The moors are on fure,and the smoke is turning the aky and the light all sorts of improbable colours. I can't properly do it justice in a photo, which just sees a bright object and corrects it back to the sun. But it is weird and beautiful. This is the best photo I can manage:
In apolitical news, tgere is an absolutely blood red sun over South Manchester. The moors are on fure,and the smoke is turning the aky and the light all sorts of improbable colours. I can't properly do it justice in a photo, which just sees a bright object and corrects it back to the sun. But it is weird and beautiful. This is the best photo I can manage:
Dovestones.
Apparently some yoof had a firework party as part of a vigil for their mate who drowned in the reservoir the day before. With utterly predictable results.
[The forecast this week is for slightly lower temperatures in most parts but with a strong and dry easterly wind. No points for guessing that there might be more of this].
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Eh?
Others have challenged this much more eloquently than I can, but this line stuck out for me:
"...when he ran out of levers he left office..."
What else, precisely, were you expecting him to do after he ran out of levers (of which one was inciting and/or permitting his supporters to storm congress)?
In your mind, would the DJT who wasn't worthy of credit have pushed the resolute desk against the door of the Oval Office, stuck his fingers in his ears and loudly sung the Star Spangled Banner until everyone got bored and said 'oh okay, if you really want to you can have another four years'?
I can only presume you are giving him credit because he did not invoke martial law. How do you think that would have gone for him?
I can't make head or tail of this. As others have said, it is chilling.
Looks horribly like the Swiss fire - inflammable ceiling?
Thing to remember - if you see the start of a fire, leave. Flashover and smoke spread with incredible speed in the later stages of a fire. Almost like an explosion.
Absolutely. Every training I ever had was ‘raise the alarm and get out’ don’t try to tackle it, don’t do anything but escape as quickly as possible.
I just remember how quickly the Bradford fire took hold from the first signs of smoke. It used to be shown as part of training we did.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The big problem is how long you might be on remand having not been convicted of anything, clogging up the prisons and - much more importantly - having your freedom constrained at the whim of the state for months at a time. 25% of the Scottish prison population are on remand. These are innocent people (until proven otherwise).
Some of the Palestine Action numpties were on remand for 18 months before the CPS dropped the charges. Disgusting, kafkaesque use of the justice system to constrain political activity - and part of the reason why child rapists like this man are free to roam.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The big problem is how long you might be on remand having not been convicted of anything, clogging up the prisons and - much more importantly - having your freedom constrained at the whim of the state for months at a time. 25% of the Scottish prison population are on remand. These are innocent people (until proven otherwise).
Some of the Palestine Action numpties were on remand for 18 months before the CPS dropped the charges. Disgusting, kafkaesque use of the justice system to constrain political activity - and part of the reason why a child rapists like this man are free to roam.
Forgive me, but that's not equivalent. The former examples including the fugitive are people who have been convicted and bailed pending sentencing. Not people on remand awaiting trial which is a different scenario.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The big problem is how long you might be on remand having not been convicted of anything, clogging up the prisons and - much more importantly - having your freedom constrained at the whim of the state for months at a time. 25% of the Scottish prison population are on remand. These are innocent people (until proven otherwise).
Some of the Palestine Action numpties were on remand for 18 months before the CPS dropped the charges. Disgusting, kafkaesque use of the justice system to constrain political activity - and part of the reason why a child rapists like this man are free to roam.
Forgive me, but that's not equivalent. The former examples including the fugitive are people who have been convicted and bailed pending sentencing. Not people on remand awaiting trial which is a different scenario.
A big driver of why they are bailed is the existing enormous remand population. And it's a perverse argument to make - I'd much prefer to have the convicted child rapist locked up on remand for sentencing than a few PA activists on criminal damage charges (that are then dropped 18 months later).
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
And I don't think he's incredibly stupid.
Narcissistic pathological liars and confabulators can end up believing their own lies.
I don't think he cares enough about the truth to acknowledge it or care about it - he is so self-obsessed that whatever suits him becomes their 'truth'.
Its why he gets so angry at being betrayed when anyone stands up to him too.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The criteria, surely, is "risk to the public".
Which in a system running at capacity, should rationally carry most weight.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
And I don't think he's incredibly stupid.
Narcissistic pathological liars and confabulators can end up believing their own lies.
I don't think he cares enough about the truth to acknowledge it or care about it - he is so self-obsessed that whatever suits him becomes their 'truth'.
Its why he gets so angry at being betrayed when anyone stands up to him too.
The brilliant film Boiler Room illustrates how the ultimate con is to sell to yourself.
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
It is so hard not to speculate when things like this are published.
I hope this gets to court very rapidly so that the timeline of events gets placed on to the record and an account of why he acted in this way (assuming he did) is put out so we can all understand what happened.
At this stage, it is hard to see what the motive would be. No one drives 300 miles to kill a politician without having a reason.
Of course people speculate. People are people. The problem is people publishing their speculation in a form accessible to the entire population of the UK including all the silliest.
The insoluble bit of the problem so far is that the universal capacity to publish one's great thoughts (including of course this one) in a form instantly available to the entire planet is still very new. In a case such as this one it only takes, say, one person in a million in the UK (that's 70 people) to set the speculation wagon running. One person in a million is not a problem when confined to a gossipy telephone call with their sister, but now it's a lot.
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Eh?
Others have challenged this much more eloquently than I can, but this line stuck out for me:
"...when he ran out of levers he left office..."
What else, precisely, were you expecting him to do after he ran out of levers (of which one was inciting and/or permitting his supporters to storm congress)?
In your mind, would the DJT who wasn't worthy of credit have pushed the resolute desk against the door of the Oval Office, stuck his fingers in his ears and loudly sung the Star Spangled Banner until everyone got bored and said 'oh okay, if you really want to you can have another four years'?
I can only presume you are giving him credit because he did not invoke martial law. How do you think that would have gone for him?
I can't make head or tail of this. As others have said, it is chilling.
Plenty of his opponents have indeed been suggesting that he might invoke martial law, so...
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
And I don't think he's incredibly stupid.
Narcissistic pathological liars and confabulators can end up believing their own lies.
I don't think he cares enough about the truth to acknowledge it or care about it - he is so self-obsessed that whatever suits him becomes their 'truth'.
That's right. That's also apparent by the way he so blatantly cheats at golf and uses his caddies to aide him doing so. He simply changes the rules to suit him, and by getting away with it plays to the rules as he has redefined them. Ditto the 2020 election, except that he (just) didn't get away with it, and thus in his own warped mind the thwarted thief tells himself that the election was stolen from him.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
And I don't think he's incredibly stupid.
Narcissistic pathological liars and confabulators can end up believing their own lies.
I don't think he cares enough about the truth to acknowledge it or care about it - he is so self-obsessed that whatever suits him becomes their 'truth'.
Its why he gets so angry at being betrayed when anyone stands up to him too.
This is what I'd always previously thought - his ego requires him to not be able to lose an election therefore he has convinced himself that he actually won in 2020.
Buy by the same token I'm not sure he actually cares that much about how the Republican Party does in elections when he isn't a candidate.
Some data on the status of fuel stations across a number of Russian regions.
It's a difficult time for St Petersburg taxi drivers.
Is there any solid gossip on who or what might replace Putin? I'm not quite old enough to remember such gossip when Gorbachev took over in the USSR, but I do remember a vague sense of surprise at this new boy. I'm sure it's dangerous for people to stick their heads above the parapet in current Russia - but I'm sure it was a tad risky to do so in 80s USSR too.
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Eh?
Others have challenged this much more eloquently than I can, but this line stuck out for me:
"...when he ran out of levers he left office..."
What else, precisely, were you expecting him to do after he ran out of levers (of which one was inciting and/or permitting his supporters to storm congress)?
In your mind, would the DJT who wasn't worthy of credit have pushed the resolute desk against the door of the Oval Office, stuck his fingers in his ears and loudly sung the Star Spangled Banner until everyone got bored and said 'oh okay, if you really want to you can have another four years'?
I can only presume you are giving him credit because he did not invoke martial law. How do you think that would have gone for him?
I can't make head or tail of this. As others have said, it is chilling.
Plenty of his opponents have indeed been suggesting that he might invoke martial law, so...
But 2021 is not 2026 and Trump and Hegseth hadn't purged the military back then, so the comparison doesn't seem to hold any water. Unless I am missing something, attempting to declare martial law in 2021 would very obviously not have worked. Attempting to do so in 2026 seems far less clear cut.
In apolitical news, tgere is an absolutely blood red sun over South Manchester. The moors are on fure,and the smoke is turning the aky and the light all sorts of improbable colours. I can't properly do it justice in a photo, which just sees a bright object and corrects it back to the sun. But it is weird and beautiful. This is the best photo I can manage:
Dovestones.
Apparently some yoof had a firework party as part of a vigil for their mate who drowned in the reservoir the day before. With utterly predictable results.
[The forecast this week is for slightly lower temperatures in most parts but with a strong and dry easterly wind. No points for guessing that there might be more of this].
Rats. South of Dovestones is probably only a mile or two with the easterly wind from where the moors pose one of their biggest threat to property.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
And I don't think he's incredibly stupid.
Narcissistic pathological liars and confabulators can end up believing their own lies.
I don't think he cares enough about the truth to acknowledge it or care about it - he is so self-obsessed that whatever suits him becomes their 'truth'.
Its why he gets so angry at being betrayed when anyone stands up to him too.
This is what I'd always previously thought - his ego requires him to not be able to lose an election therefore he has convinced himself that he actually won in 2020.
Buy by the same token I'm not sure he actually cares that much about how the Republican Party does in elections when he isn't a candidate.
That's exactly what I think too.
The Republican Party exists to serve him, not the other way around.
If one of his clan succeeds him, he'll push for that as that still benefits him - but if its someone random he has no connection to, no interest in that.
Reform UK has warned Labour MPs that restricting party finances could put the lives of its politicians in danger after the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Senior Labour backbenchers will this week seek to cap political donations at either £1m or £100,000 when the Government’s flagship elections bill returns to the Commons.
Nigel Farage’s party claimed that such a move would leave it without the funds necessary to provide security for its eight MPs ....
Police have said they remain “open-minded” about the reason for the alleged murder but said there was no evidence to suggest a political or terror motive at this stage.
Farage's attempts to use Anne Widdecombe's death to further his own political ends is plumbing new depths, even for him.
I agree with this:
"Another senior Tory MP said he thought Farage had “brought this into his narrative. He needs a narrative to keep himself in the media for the next four weeks to talk about anything that isn’t [questions over the £5m gift]. He’s leveraging this to say we all need security because this is ‘premeditated’. There’s no evidence to suggest that it’s a politically motivated murder at all. Until the police conclude their investigation, the speculation is just harmful.” "
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The criteria, surely, is "risk to the public".
Which in a system running at capacity, should rationally carry most weight.
It would be possible to build new prisons in a matter of weeks if politicians really wanted it to happen.
Reform UK has warned Labour MPs that restricting party finances could put the lives of its politicians in danger after the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Senior Labour backbenchers will this week seek to cap political donations at either £1m or £100,000 when the Government’s flagship elections bill returns to the Commons.
Nigel Farage’s party claimed that such a move would leave it without the funds necessary to provide security for its eight MPs ....
Police have said they remain “open-minded” about the reason for the alleged murder but said there was no evidence to suggest a political or terror motive at this stage.
Is the Labour bill specifically intended to deal with the rise of Reform, or does it just happen to do that? How plausible is the deniability? Passing legislation which implicitly targets one party is poor form.
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Eh?
Others have challenged this much more eloquently than I can, but this line stuck out for me:
"...when he ran out of levers he left office..."
What else, precisely, were you expecting him to do after he ran out of levers (of which one was inciting and/or permitting his supporters to storm congress)?
In your mind, would the DJT who wasn't worthy of credit have pushed the resolute desk against the door of the Oval Office, stuck his fingers in his ears and loudly sung the Star Spangled Banner until everyone got bored and said 'oh okay, if you really want to you can have another four years'?
I can only presume you are giving him credit because he did not invoke martial law. How do you think that would have gone for him?
I can't make head or tail of this. As others have said, it is chilling.
Plenty of his opponents have indeed been suggesting that he might invoke martial law, so...
But 2021 is not 2026 and Trump and Hegseth hadn't purged the military back then, so the comparison doesn't seem to hold any water. Unless I am missing something, attempting to declare martial law in 2021 would very obviously not have worked. Attempting to do so in 2026 seems far less clear cut.
Is that merely just the difference between the past and the future, though?
Trump knows his lost, and there is plenty of contemperaneous evidence of this.
Trump White House aide, Alyssa Griffin, saw Trump watching Biden on TV and say: "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?"
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows own deputy, testified that Trump told Meadows: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing." He further said to Meadows "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still fight like hell".
On a Lex Fridman podcast in September 2020, Trump even admitted he "lost by a whisker".
Fair play to the Telegraph - if the Binface Party (is there one?) ever came to power the economic mess would be nearly as bad as that caused by Truss (whom the Telegraph supported).
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
Trump knows his lost, and there is plenty of contemperaneous evidence of this.
Trump White House aide, Alyssa Griffin, saw Trump watching Biden on TV and say: "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?"
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows own deputy, testified that Trump told Meadows: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing." He further said to Meadows "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still fight like hell".
On a Lex Fridman podcast in September 2020, Trump even admitted he "lost by a whisker".
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The criteria, surely, is "risk to the public".
Which in a system running at capacity, should rationally carry most weight.
It would be possible to build new prisons in a matter of weeks if politicians really wanted it to happen.
Some data on the status of fuel stations across a number of Russian regions.
It's a difficult time for St Petersburg taxi drivers.
Is there any solid gossip on who or what might replace Putin? I'm not quite old enough to remember such gossip when Gorbachev took over in the USSR, but I do remember a vague sense of surprise at this new boy. I'm sure it's dangerous for people to stick their heads above the parapet in current Russia - but I'm sure it was a tad risky to do so in 80s USSR too.
The USSR survived several changes of leader, because it had an institutional structure for doing so.
As far as I can tell Putin has created a form of governance that revolves around him personally to an extraordinary degree. I don't think it is easily passed onto a successor.
Some data on the status of fuel stations across a number of Russian regions.
It's a difficult time for St Petersburg taxi drivers.
Is there any solid gossip on who or what might replace Putin? I'm not quite old enough to remember such gossip when Gorbachev took over in the USSR, but I do remember a vague sense of surprise at this new boy. I'm sure it's dangerous for people to stick their heads above the parapet in current Russia - but I'm sure it was a tad risky to do so in 80s USSR too.
In the West perhaps. There was no surprise in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev had been Andropov’s preferred successor and (having concluded it would be better not to follow Andropov directly but give a very frail Chernenko a brief moment in the sun to appease his supporters) had been de facto leader for much of the previous eleven months while Chernenko was ill, recuperating or plain doolally.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) jokingly shrugged off advice that he seek immediate medical attention in the moments before his death Saturday night, according to a new Axios report.
graham choosing to put off medical care that likely would’ve saved his life because he was scheduled to be on meet the press in the morning is the most perfect encapsulation of his career one can imagine
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
It is so hard not to speculate when things like this are published.
I hope this gets to court very rapidly so that the timeline of events gets placed on to the record and an account of why he acted in this way (assuming he did) is put out so we can all understand what happened.
At this stage, it is hard to see what the motive would be. No one drives 300 miles to kill a politician without having a reason.
No, it's incredibly easy not to speculate. Here, look...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) jokingly shrugged off advice that he seek immediate medical attention in the moments before his death Saturday night, according to a new Axios report.
graham choosing to put off medical care that likely would’ve saved his life because he was scheduled to be on meet the press in the morning is the most perfect encapsulation of his career one can imagine
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
It's post-conviction bail not post-charge bail being discussed...
this series of biblical plagues and strikings down around the 250th anniversary is enough to convert someone to, like, catholicism. but the kind that respects the pope
fucking weirdass weather, culturally significant bodies of water changing color, unusual parasites and ailments running rampant, elder sons suddenly stricken overnight.......
I'm starting to seriously worry that by this time next week we will have run out of this summer's tv sport.
What am I supposed to do then?
The Commonwealth Games is coming soon, though I think its mostly live on TNT and highlights on 5, which probably matches the level of enthusiasm I can discern for it in Glasgow at the moment.
Trump knows his lost, and there is plenty of contemperaneous evidence of this.
Trump White House aide, Alyssa Griffin, saw Trump watching Biden on TV and say: "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?"
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows own deputy, testified that Trump told Meadows: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing." He further said to Meadows "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still fight like hell".
On a Lex Fridman podcast in September 2020, Trump even admitted he "lost by a whisker".
Aortic Dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
“The death certificate will be PENDING until all the toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized and at that point the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death.”
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
The big problem with giving Chagos to Mauritius is that it breaks Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
No, that line the Tory front bench used in Parliament to hold things up a bit, collapsed earlier this year Driver, when legal boffins in UN said it’s not true.
"Legal boffins in the UN" can say what they want. This deal plainly infringes on the Chagossians' right to self-determination. Unless you think they don't have such a right.
Aortic Dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
“The death certificate will be PENDING until all the toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized and at that point the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death.”
I’m surprised Nigel Farage hasn’t claimed he was murdered and that this proves he needs rhe £5 million for personal protection.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
The big problem with giving Chagos to Mauritius is that it breaks Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
No, that line the Tory front bench used in Parliament to hold things up a bit, collapsed earlier this year Driver, when legal boffins in UN said it’s not true.
Legal boffins in the UN can say as they please, but its not binding and thus not law.
Trump knows his lost, and there is plenty of contemperaneous evidence of this.
Trump White House aide, Alyssa Griffin, saw Trump watching Biden on TV and say: "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?"
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows own deputy, testified that Trump told Meadows: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing." He further said to Meadows "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still fight like hell".
On a Lex Fridman podcast in September 2020, Trump even admitted he "lost by a whisker".
Darren Grimes @darrengrimes · 5h If you can’t understand how much anguish and upset there is in the Reform family right now at this cruel act of barbarism then that’s your problem, not ours.
===
Nah, man, we get it.
What we don't get is why, if you are deeply grieving and presumably want the murderer brought to book, you've all spent all day on social media throwing out endless wild theories, rumours and speculations instead of a dignified silence.
Darren Grimes @darrengrimes · 5h If you can’t understand how much anguish and upset there is in the Reform family right now at this cruel act of barbarism then that’s your problem, not ours.
What we don't get is why, if you are deeply grieving and presumably want the murderer brought to book, you've all spent all day on social media throwing out endless wild theories, rumours and speculations instead of a dignified silence.
Aortic Dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
“The death certificate will be PENDING until all the toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized and at that point the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death.”
I’m surprised Nigel Farage hasn’t claimed he was murdered and that this proves he needs rhe £5 million for personal protection.
He's trying everything to climb out of the dustbin of history.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Well, he either knows they are lies, or he is incredibly stupid.
Trump knows his lost, and there is plenty of contemperaneous evidence of this.
Trump White House aide, Alyssa Griffin, saw Trump watching Biden on TV and say: "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?"
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows own deputy, testified that Trump told Meadows: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing." He further said to Meadows "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still fight like hell".
On a Lex Fridman podcast in September 2020, Trump even admitted he "lost by a whisker".
In September 2020, are you sure?
Oops. I'm out by a year
(narrator: Trump lost the 2020 election in November 2020 and his successor Biden was inaugurated in January 2021)
Aortic Dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
“The death certificate will be PENDING until all the toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized and at that point the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death.”
I’m surprised Nigel Farage hasn’t claimed he was murdered and that this proves he needs rhe £5 million for personal protection.
There was talk of some sort of poisoning in view of his death so soon after returning from Kyiv. I wonderd about a pulmonary embolus from the flight.
Aortic dissection has a pretty grim prognosis even with the best medical attention. 40% mortality in the first hour, but a pretty clean way to go. There are worse.
I have just read Hannan's article. It is possible that it's a deadpan spoof, although I don't think he's ever been that witty. I don't know what to make of it.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
The criteria, surely, is "risk to the public".
Which in a system running at capacity, should rationally carry most weight.
It would be possible to build new prisons in a matter of weeks if politicians really wanted it to happen.
Expensive to build, and difficult to staff too, which is why we have exempted prison officers from the pay element for visas, we recruit particularly from Nigeria and Ghana:
Reform UK has warned Labour MPs that restricting party finances could put the lives of its politicians in danger after the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Senior Labour backbenchers will this week seek to cap political donations at either £1m or £100,000 when the Government’s flagship elections bill returns to the Commons.
Nigel Farage’s party claimed that such a move would leave it without the funds necessary to provide security for its eight MPs ....
Police have said they remain “open-minded” about the reason for the alleged murder but said there was no evidence to suggest a political or terror motive at this stage.
Is the Labour bill specifically intended to deal with the rise of Reform, or does it just happen to do that? How plausible is the deniability? Passing legislation which implicitly targets one party is poor form.
I think it's convincingly wider - there was a manifesto pledge, and there has been an independent enquiry headed up by Philip Rycroft, who was Permanent Secretary in the Department for Exiting the European Union under the last Government but (counts) two.
Having caught up with long term manipulation that happened in the 2010s by foreign actors, I think it needs to be stronger, and I might go so far as excluding donations from anyone other than British Citizens living in the UK,or perhaps anyone living here who can vote, capped at £500, so no businesses or Trades Union donations at all, and nothing from abroad. And if it needed a some taxpayer funding to balance, that is a lesser evil than the manipulation we have seen.
I think it needs to be in tandem with major reforms imposed on foreign social media, given the deliberate interference by Musk & Co, and the Russian and US Governments for a start. I'd probably support "list posts by time order only". We need to be decisively like Europe and other democracies, not like the USA.
(I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell us that it is a dastardly plot, and there is a target Kenneth Williams somewhere.)
I have just read Hannan's article. It is possible that it's a deadpan spoof, although I don't think he's ever been that witty. I don't know what to make of it.
He’s seems to have misunderstood that the Count has himself identified the fiscal absurdities of the main parties - e.g. the “cut your taxes but raise everyone else’s” policy - that’s a pisstake, not a real policy proposal. He has a bin for a face.
I’ve never witnessed such a widespread sense of humour fail in British culture. It’s so weird. Some - not all - on the Right are really very angry about this. It’s like the drunk man on the High Street screaming “respect me” at his laughing girlfriend.
Darren Grimes @darrengrimes · 5h If you can’t understand how much anguish and upset there is in the Reform family right now at this cruel act of barbarism then that’s your problem, not ours.
===
Nah, man, we get it.
What we don't get is why, if you are deeply grieving and presumably want the murderer brought to book, you've all spent all day on social media throwing out endless wild theories, rumours and speculations instead of a dignified silence.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 18m And here we have it. The final line crossed. Allison [Pearson] literally telling Ann Widdecombe’s family what they should want in the wake of her death.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 19m I did warn this would happen yesterday. Everything Reform is currently doing and saying is about deflecting from legitimate scrutiny of Nigel Farage.
I have just read Hannan's article. It is possible that it's a deadpan spoof, although I don't think he's ever been that witty. I don't know what to make of it.
He’s seems to have misunderstood that the Count has himself identified the fiscal absurdities of the main parties - e.g. the “cut your taxes but raise everyone else’s” policy - that’s a pisstake, not a real policy proposal. He has a bin for a face.
I’ve never witnessed such a widespread sense of humour fail in British culture. It’s so weird. Some - not all - on the Right are really very angry about this. It’s like the drunk man on the High Street screaming “respect me” at his laughing girlfriend.
They love to think they are the plucky underdog bringing the Establishment down to size. We have tall poppy syndrome. If you keep telling everyone you've led the last 330 odd polls then you become the target. That's the English way.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 19m I did warn this would happen yesterday. Everything Reform is currently doing and saying is about deflecting from legitimate scrutiny of Nigel Farage.
Darren Grimes @darrengrimes · 5h If you can’t understand how much anguish and upset there is in the Reform family right now at this cruel act of barbarism then that’s your problem, not ours.
===
Nah, man, we get it.
What we don't get is why, if you are deeply grieving and presumably want the murderer brought to book, you've all spent all day on social media throwing out endless wild theories, rumours and speculations instead of a dignified silence.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 18m And here we have it. The final line crossed. Allison [Pearson] literally telling Ann Widdecombe’s family what they should want in the wake of her death.
Well his office has released a written statement and a photo.
No independent witnesses - still less Brian Blessed - have actually confirmed it.
The world would be much better if people only passed on if Brian Blessed allowed. Otherwise some form of reincarnation and a promissory note to do better next time or else. All the best aspects of Buddhism and the Hawk Men.
Comments
Thing to remember - if you see the start of a fire, leave. Flashover and smoke spread with incredible speed in the later stages of a fire. Almost like an explosion.
Clear evidence of dementia?
He does not seem to give one iota about the truth.
I hope this gets to court very rapidly so that the timeline of events gets placed on to the record and an account of why he acted in this way (assuming he did) is put out so we can all understand what happened.
At this stage, it is hard to see what the motive would be. No one drives 300 miles to kill a politician without having a reason.
Apparently some yoof had a firework party as part of a vigil for their mate who drowned in the reservoir the day before. With utterly predictable results.
[The forecast this week is for slightly lower temperatures in most parts but with a strong and dry easterly wind. No points for guessing that there might be more of this].
Others have challenged this much more eloquently than I can, but this line stuck out for me:
"...when he ran out of levers he left office..."
What else, precisely, were you expecting him to do after he ran out of levers (of which one was inciting and/or permitting his supporters to storm congress)?
In your mind, would the DJT who wasn't worthy of credit have pushed the resolute desk against the door of the Oval Office, stuck his fingers in his ears and loudly sung the Star Spangled Banner until everyone got bored and said 'oh okay, if you really want to you can have another four years'?
I can only presume you are giving him credit because he did not invoke martial law. How do you think that would have gone for him?
I can't make head or tail of this. As others have said, it is chilling.
I just remember how quickly the Bradford fire took hold from the first signs of smoke. It used to be shown as part of training we did.
Some of the Palestine Action numpties were on remand for 18 months before the CPS dropped the charges. Disgusting, kafkaesque use of the justice system to constrain political activity - and part of the reason why child rapists like this man are free to roam.
And I don't think he's incredibly stupid.
I don't think he cares enough about the truth to acknowledge it or care about it - he is so self-obsessed that whatever suits him becomes their 'truth'.
Its why he gets so angry at being betrayed when anyone stands up to him too.
Which in a system running at capacity, should rationally carry most weight.
The insoluble bit of the problem so far is that the universal capacity to publish one's great thoughts (including of course this one) in a form instantly available to the entire planet is still very new. In a case such as this one it only takes, say, one person in a million in the UK (that's 70 people) to set the speculation wagon running. One person in a million is not a problem when confined to a gossipy telephone call with their sister, but now it's a lot.
Buy by the same token I'm not sure he actually cares that much about how the Republican Party does in elections when he isn't a candidate.
https://x.com/BenKentish/status/2076288981646340532
Sorry but I’m a single issue voter and I really want to nationalize Adele.
https://x.com/Dongkey_kong/status/2076336271358636272
The Republican Party exists to serve him, not the other way around.
If one of his clan succeeds him, he'll push for that as that still benefits him - but if its someone random he has no connection to, no interest in that.
Reform UK has warned Labour MPs that restricting party finances could put the lives of its politicians in danger after the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Senior Labour backbenchers will this week seek to cap political donations at either £1m or £100,000 when the Government’s flagship elections bill returns to the Commons.
Nigel Farage’s party claimed that such a move would leave it without the funds necessary to provide security for its eight MPs
....
Police have said they remain “open-minded” about the reason for the alleged murder but said there was no evidence to suggest a political or terror motive at this stage.
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/7ab65a58b6f34d29
I agree with this:
"Another senior Tory MP said he thought Farage had “brought this into his narrative. He needs a narrative to keep himself in the media for the next four weeks to talk about anything that isn’t [questions over the £5m gift]. He’s leveraging this to say we all need security because this is ‘premeditated’. There’s no evidence to suggest that it’s a politically motivated murder at all. Until the police conclude their investigation, the speculation is just harmful.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/12/police-speculation-during-widdecombe-investigation-is-unhelpful-and-distressing
An operator like Farage surely can’t have found his way into this by-election mess by accident
By Jonn Elledge"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/07/nigel-farage-wants-to-be-humiliated
https://x.com/WUTangKids/status/2076392271570768102?s=20
Trump White House aide, Alyssa Griffin, saw Trump watching Biden on TV and say: "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?"
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows own deputy, testified that Trump told Meadows: "I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing." He further said to Meadows "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still fight like hell".
On a Lex Fridman podcast in September 2020, Trump even admitted he "lost by a whisker".
I am quite a bit more relaxed about what he might try to do since the recent spate of SCOTUS rulings, quite a few of which went against him.
As far as I can tell Putin has created a form of governance that revolves around him personally to an extraordinary degree. I don't think it is easily passed onto a successor.
What am I supposed to do then?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) jokingly shrugged off advice that he seek immediate medical attention in the moments before his death Saturday night, according to a new Axios report.
@golikehellmachine.com
graham choosing to put off medical care that likely would’ve saved his life because he was scheduled to be on meet the press in the morning is the most perfect encapsulation of his career one can imagine
See?
Edit: thanks to all who replied.
C'mon Scotland!
@sarahjeong.bsky.social
this series of biblical plagues and strikings down around the 250th anniversary is enough to convert someone to, like, catholicism. but the kind that respects the pope
fucking weirdass weather, culturally significant bodies of water changing color, unusual parasites and ailments running rampant, elder sons suddenly stricken overnight.......
Again.
We still have the King George at Ascot, Glorious Goodwood and the Ebor meeting at York.
Although I am seeing a lot of clips from The Office as it is twenty years ago and so maybe that first...
God knows who you have to take a month's subscriptionfrom to watch it. Will find out nearer the time...
And in more general sport, it’s the Commonwealth Games from 23 July in Glasgow.
FROM LINDSEY GRAHAM'S OFFICE:
“The preliminary examination findings were:
Aortic Dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
“The death certificate will be PENDING until all the toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized and at that point the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death.”
It comes down to a political choice.
Darren Grimes
@darrengrimes
·
5h
If you can’t understand how much anguish and upset there is in the Reform family right now at this cruel act of barbarism then that’s your problem, not ours.
===
Nah, man, we get it.
What we don't get is why, if you are deeply grieving and presumably want the murderer brought to book, you've all spent all day on social media throwing out endless wild theories, rumours and speculations instead of a dignified silence.
@darrengrimes
·
5h
If you can’t understand how much anguish and upset there is in the Reform family right now at this cruel act of barbarism then that’s your problem, not ours.
https://x.com/darrengrimes/status/2076329499294040158
===
Nah, man, we get it.
What we don't get is why, if you are deeply grieving and presumably want the murderer brought to book, you've all spent all day on social media throwing out endless wild theories, rumours and speculations instead of a dignified silence.
(Groan !!!)
Aortic dissection has a pretty grim prognosis even with the best medical attention. 40% mortality in the first hour, but a pretty clean way to go. There are worse.
See also:
https://www.reaction.life/p/britain-looks-like-brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp89p1x26kxo
There report is here, with its recommendations.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-rycroft-review-report-of-the-independent-review-into-countering-foreign-financial-influence-and-interference-in-uk-politics/the-rycroft-review-report-of-the-independent-review-into-countering-foreign-financial-influence-and-interference-in-uk-politics
(Someone is keyword stuffing.)
Having caught up with long term manipulation that happened in the 2010s by foreign actors, I think it needs to be stronger, and I might go so far as excluding donations from anyone other than British Citizens living in the UK,or perhaps anyone living here who can vote, capped at £500, so no businesses or Trades Union donations at all, and nothing from abroad. And if it needed a some taxpayer funding to balance, that is a lesser evil than the manipulation we have seen.
I think it needs to be in tandem with major reforms imposed on foreign social media, given the deliberate interference by Musk & Co, and the Russian and US Governments for a start. I'd probably support "list posts by time order only". We need to be decisively like Europe and other democracies, not like the USA.
(I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell us that it is a dastardly plot, and there is a target Kenneth Williams somewhere.)
I’ve never witnessed such a widespread sense of humour fail in British culture. It’s so weird. Some - not all - on the Right are really very angry about this. It’s like the drunk man on the High Street screaming “respect me” at his laughing girlfriend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge2nd611zo
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/12/politics/mitch-mcconnell-hospital-announcement
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
18m
And here we have it. The final line crossed. Allison [Pearson] literally telling Ann Widdecombe’s family what they should want in the wake of her death.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2076420397348647221
No independent witnesses - still less Brian Blessed - have actually confirmed it.
@DPJHodges
·
19m
I did warn this would happen yesterday. Everything Reform is currently doing and saying is about deflecting from legitimate scrutiny of Nigel Farage.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2076423178226708646
We have tall poppy syndrome.
If you keep telling everyone you've led the last 330 odd polls then you become the target.
That's the English way.
The winner of every Round of 16 game so far has been the country with the highest unemployment rate for men aged 15-24
https://x.com/F_Edits/status/2074559667825516609
If that isn't sporting multiple orgasm I don't know what is.