This is nothing new. I often marvel at the extent to which architects of social housing appear to hate the concept of those houses' occupants being able to see out. It doesn't appear to be a costcutting measure particularly. OTOH, a lot of those horrible tower blocks which went up in the lase 60s and 70s had absolutely amazing light inside.
My apartment in Brum the lounge window was the top half of the outside facing wall and it was fantastic.
Quite happy as a teenager, according to contemporaneous reports, to march through Sussex singing Nazi songs in the presence of Jewish classmates. He can dish it out but if it is batted back to him he whines like a whiny thing.
The person reporting it is nothing to do with Farage
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
No. He's been showing signs of suffering in the heat. He'll be back to normal (!) when it cools down a bit.
I'm looking forward to his forecast for Clacton though.
Having a go at anyone who doesn't agree with your views is a bit silly don't you think.
My apologies if you feel I am having a go. As regards your views, I don't agree with many of them but take the position that they are a welcome counterpoint for debate and assessment of betting positions.
If true, it makes 1990s Russia look like an era of plenty.
Here is 60 seconds of historian Sarah Paine describing her experience of 1990s Soviet supermarkets, for those who wonder why Putin has widespread support from those who remember how bad things used to be. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t7CIrQCIkzc
1990s Russia Joke
What do old people remember about Stalin? There was food and there was order What do old people want? Lots of food. And lots of order.
Kinda makes the point that Ukraine != Russia given the famine in Ukraine in the 30s.
A bit like with one historian who used 19th century England as an example of democracy putting an end to famine.
Counter Terrorism Policing South East have said that “new information and evidence has come to light” and they have taken over the investigation into the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Shabana Mahmood said:
“This morning I have spoken to the head of Counter Terrorism Policing, Following new information and evidence, they are now leading on the investigation into the horrific murder of Ann Widdecombe. The police are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack. I will be updating the House further this afternoon. My thoughts today remain with Ann’s family and friends, and all those who loved her.”
Counter Terrorism Policing South East - not a south west terrorism matter then, just the victim lived there?
This is nothing new, sadly, though I had hoped we had moved beyond it. I often marvel at the extent to which architects of social housing appear to hate the concept of those houses' occupants being able to see out. It doesn't appear to be a costcutting measure particularly. OTOH, a lot of those horrible tower blocks which went up in the lase 60s and 70s had absolutely amazing light inside.
I think it is for insulation. Large windows lose (and gain) more heat.
Why they can't just add insulated shutters I don't know. I wouldn't want to live in a house with tiny windows either.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
Quite happy as a teenager, according to contemporaneous reports, to march through Sussex singing Nazi songs in the presence of Jewish classmates. He can dish it out but if it is batted back to him he whines like a whiny thing.
The person reporting it is nothing to do with Farage
That an isolated eccentric with a cause has made a report to the police - someone anyone can do about anything - is not news.
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
You may be right but the matter begins with exact and precise identification of the acts and sections to be dumped. My starting point is that 'being an improper dickhead' is not a criminal offence in England. Probably not in Scotland either. Criminal law is necessarily tediously precise. Of course a good deal of what 'dickheads' do is criminal. Like incitement to set fire to people. That is because they are (lawfully) 'dickheads'.
Quite happy as a teenager, according to contemporaneous reports, to march through Sussex singing Nazi songs in the presence of Jewish classmates. He can dish it out but if it is batted back to him he whines like a whiny thing.
The person reporting it is nothing to do with Farage
Quite happy as a teenager, according to contemporaneous reports, to march through Sussex singing Nazi songs in the presence of Jewish classmates. He can dish it out but if it is batted back to him he whines like a whiny thing.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards could assess whether this stunt by Farage has brought Parliament into disrepute. The fact he has engineered an election against a bin, a fox and a fishfinger is surely a breach of the MP's Code of Conduct.
This is nothing new, sadly, though I had hoped we had moved beyond it. I often marvel at the extent to which architects of social housing appear to hate the concept of those houses' occupants being able to see out. It doesn't appear to be a costcutting measure particularly. OTOH, a lot of those horrible tower blocks which went up in the lase 60s and 70s had absolutely amazing light inside.
I think it is for insulation. Large windows lose (and gain) more heat.
Why they can't just add insulated shutters I don't know. I wouldn't want to live in a house with tiny windows either.
Because they wanted the house to be passive but also built as cheaply as possible.
Remember that the people moving in are choosing between this really cheap (but crap) property from a housing associations or paying a lot more for a privately rented home so crap is a valid option because someone will take it.
Rather sadly given that we may be losing the comments for hundreds of articles when the mods migrate us to another platform and all the tags may be lost, but as this thread contains a discussion about free speeche, here is the hashtag
#pbfreespeech
Given the increasing uselessness of Google it may have been useless anyway, but let's battle until the end, yes?
Counter Terrorism Policing South East have said that “new information and evidence has come to light” and they have taken over the investigation into the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Shabana Mahmood said:
“This morning I have spoken to the head of Counter Terrorism Policing, Following new information and evidence, they are now leading on the investigation into the horrific murder of Ann Widdecombe. The police are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack. I will be updating the House further this afternoon. My thoughts today remain with Ann’s family and friends, and all those who loved her.”
Counter Terrorism Policing South East - not a south west terrorism matter then, just the victim lived there?
I suspect the Met takes the lead on threats to Westminster politicians.
I does seem strange the police said there was "no evidence" of a terrorist motive. Maybe they hadn't looked for any. Driving all the way from Rotherham to Devon and back looks like a targeted hit rather than a burglary gone wrong. And as the victim is a politician, terrorism looks likely, under the sweeping definition we now have under British law, ie any violence to a political end
Quite happy as a teenager, according to contemporaneous reports, to march through Sussex singing Nazi songs in the presence of Jewish classmates. He can dish it out but if it is batted back to him he whines like a whiny thing.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards could assess whether this stunt by Farage has brought Parliament into disrepute. The fact he has engineered an election against a bin, a fox and a fishfinger is surely a breach of the MP's Code of Conduct.
That would cause a law suit from animal rights groups, the Royal Society form Frozen Comestibles and the bin mens Unions, on the grounds that Farage being associated with them is actually damaging their public reputations.
Rather sadly given that we may be losing the comments for hundreds of articles when the mods migrate us to another platform and all the tags may be lost, but as this thread contains a discussion about free speeche, here is the hashtag
#pbfreespeech
Given the increasing uselessness of Google it may have been useless anyway, but let's battle until the end, yes?
I posted this before but lets repeat this now.
The PB site is built on Wordpress, comments were shifted a long time ago to Vanilla for various reasons.
The plan is to shift the comments back into wordpress against the already existing headers / articles but underneath each article the comments will appear directly rather than within an iframe...
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
Counter Terrorism Policing South East have said that “new information and evidence has come to light” and they have taken over the investigation into the death of Ann Widdecombe.
Shabana Mahmood said:
“This morning I have spoken to the head of Counter Terrorism Policing, Following new information and evidence, they are now leading on the investigation into the horrific murder of Ann Widdecombe. The police are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack. I will be updating the House further this afternoon. My thoughts today remain with Ann’s family and friends, and all those who loved her.”
Counter Terrorism Policing South East - not a south west terrorism matter then, just the victim lived there?
Ms. Widdicombe lived in Devon, the suspect lived in Yorkshire. None of these places are in the South-East
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
Jessica Leeds testified, under oath, at the Carroll trial, that Trump had sexually assaulted her. Natasha Stoynoff testified, under oath, at the Carroll trial, that Trump had sexually assaulted her. The jury, that you were keen for us to listen to previously, seems to find their testimonies believable. "All the President's Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator" has >43 allegations of sexual misconduct.
I remain unclear. Is it that you think all of these women were lying and Trump has never sexually assaulted anyone; or do you think that Trump sexually assaulting women doesn't make him evil?
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
The IRGC have carried out attempted attacks in the UK. See the Siege of Chiswick Park - they attempted to recruit UK locals to attack journalists for an anti-regime news organisation based there.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
Basically this is the price we pay for having become a lower trust society. Like CCTV cameras.
It is a real shame, I would have preferred that instead norms of behaviour (like not stealing, or praising a horrific organisation) could have been maintained, but they haven't.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
It seems reasonable to call someone a rapist on the basis of a civil case. After all, if someone loses a libel case, you would not hesitate to call them a liar.
"The government has announced that it is using its new powers to proscribe Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Security minister Angela Eagle wrote in a written statement to parliament that the UK has "identified activity linked to the IRGC involving threats to life and intimidation on UK soil".
Another group called The Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right (IMCR), which is linked to Iran, is also being designated by the government following a spate of attacks on the Jewish community in Britain.
And the volunteer corps of Russia's GRU (foreign military intelligence agency) is also being designated under this legislation following "sabotage and other activity directed against the UK and Europe"."
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
Russians in Crimea are reassuring each other on social media that humanitarian aid is on the way. It's just delayed due to fuel shortages. As soon as the fuel situation is resolved the humanitarian aid will arrive...
Russia is now using its strategic fuel reserves and so the fuel situation in some cities in western Russia has improved in recent days. The number of fuel stations closed in Yaroslavl has declined from 80% 72 hours ago to 45% today as the most striking example.
Ukraine hit an oil storage depot in Stavropol last night after hitting it a few days ago. Ukraine have hit a lot of storage sites and pumping stations as well as refineries, as it makes it harder for Russia to move the supplies it does have around.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
it's okay Sandpit, I'd know it'd be far better for you for victims of sexual assault to stay silent
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
Can you show the elements where sexual assault was proven? I have given you a like for correcting my error, but you need to look at where the $5.8m (total $83m) incompensation came from.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
You keep not posting the jury's answer to the next question.
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
It's an interesting legal question, but I suspect expressing support for an organisation would relate to the organisation's current operations rather than expressing an opinion on historical matters (albeit historical matters still having some relevance today). In support of this, defunct terrorist groups aren't generally proscribed, so various existing neo-Nazi groups are proscribed but the SS isn't (oddly, the Tamil Tigers still are proscribed despite effectively being crushed some time ago, but presumably there is still deemed to be a sufficient network of continuation supporters that they aren't yet purely historical).
I agree with your discomfort about the potential breadth and lack of clarity on support of a proscribed organisation, though.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
You keep not posting the jury's answer to the next question.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
For example, if you like the modern style, block walls, pre-cast concrete slabs for the elevated floors, with floor to ceiling windows using shop sized standard glazing units. You can put up a house in very little time and it can actually look quite good.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
You keep not posting the jury's answer to the next question.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
He was adjudicated to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil court. The bar may be lower but an adjudication is good enough for me.
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
He was adjudicated *NOT* to have raped E Jean Carroll in a civil court.
You keep not posting the jury's answer to the next question.
You say “Donald Trump is a rapist”
The jury says “No he isn’t”
It’s really actually that simple.
I've pointed you to what the judge in the case said about this. He disagrees with you, but what does he know?!
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.
The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
Russian oil production has declined nearly 5% from its October 2025 peak and is now well below its OPEC quota. In early 2025 production was almost identical to the OPEC quota, since when the OPEC quota has been increased and Russian oil production after initially increasing has now fallen below the level at the beginning of 2025.
Russian refining volumes are way down, so Russia has massively increased the amount of oil loaded onto ships, but a lot of that oil is simply stored at sea, waiting for a buyer. If current trends continue Russia will run out of tankers to load crude onto and production will fall even more.
Because nothing is criminal merely because it is improper, outrageous and hurtful. To be criminal it has to come within recognisable boundaries of the criminal law. So the question is never 'why is X not criminal' but 'locate and identify exactly the criminal measure under which X is a crime.'
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
Which is why we need to dump a series of laws that have now made being an improper dickhead a criminal offence.
I see it's now punishable with up to 14 years in prison to praise the IGRC. I wasn't tempted to praise them anyway, but is any prison sentence - let alone one exceeding a typical manslaughter sentence - an appropriate penalty?
No. I believe freedom of speech should include the freedom to verbally support a terrorist l organisation.
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
It's an interesting legal question, but I suspect expressing support for an organisation would relate to the organisation's current operations rather than expressing an opinion on historical matters (albeit historical matters still having some relevance today). In support of this, defunct terrorist groups aren't generally proscribed, so various existing neo-Nazi groups are proscribed but the SS isn't (oddly, the Tamil Tigers still are proscribed despite effectively being crushed some time ago, but presumably there is still deemed to be a sufficient network of continuation supporters that they aren't yet purely historical).
I agree with your discomfort about the potential breadth and lack of clarity on support of a proscribed organisation, though.
My understanding is that there's no periodic review so dead movements end up left there are no-one cares enough to remove them.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
The houses appear to have won awards, and it looks like they were designed this way specifically to meet the passivhaus standards.
I wonder if rather than just being cheap builds, there's a struggle to hit the passivhaus with larger windows at anything like a reasonable cost.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer. The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
The houses appear to have won awards, and it looks like they were designed this way specifically to meet the passivhaus standards.
I wonder if rather than just being cheap builds, there's a struggle to hit the passivhaus with larger windows at anything like a reasonable cost.
If 'passivhaus' requires budget houses to look like that then it's not fit for purpose.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.
The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
No, it is not one of the only cases in legal history where a judge (all judges are politically appointed in the US, aren't they?) tried to overturn the view of the jury. It is entirely standard for judges to explain rulings in lay terms. It is also standard in defamation law for statements that are not precisely accurate to still not be defamatory under the concept of substantial truth (e.g., https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1281195/lathan-v-journal-co/ for classic US case law).
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
The houses appear to have won awards, and it looks like they were designed this way specifically to meet the passivhaus standards.
I wonder if rather than just being cheap builds, there's a struggle to hit the passivhaus with larger windows at anything like a reasonable cost.
If 'passivhaus' requires budget houses to look like that then it's not fit for purpose.
I always thought passivhaus houses had more windows than normal, to benefit from solar gain in winter. How else can they be heated passively?
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Yes, that looked like a joke to me.
So comedy suffers when its deconstructed. But lets try.
The tweet - "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
If he had written "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the face." - I would have agreed with you. The reason I don't in this case is the gear shift, the change of angle.
Punch him in the balls is trying, perhaps failing, perhaps its weak, to make a joke referencing the typical height differential between the average woman and the average man who believes they are a woman.
But even if you consider it to be incitement to violence, consider the situation posed. If you had a daughter might you not give the same advice if they felt threatened? Which is the scenario presented.
And on the basis of complaints from a frequent flyer with links to the police, Linehan was arrested by armed police, something the met no agrees was wrong.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer. The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
An $83m award suggests that doesn't matter.
Without in any way supporting Trump, we should be wary of the nature of American courts. They are, after all, the land of the plea bargain.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Yes, that looked like a joke to me.
So comedy suffers when its deconstructed. But lets try.
The tweet - "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
If he had written "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the face." - I would have agreed with you. The reason I don't in this case is the gear shift, the change of angle.
Punch him in the balls is trying, perhaps failing, perhaps its weak, to make a joke referencing the typical height differential between the average woman and the average man who believes they are a woman.
But even if you consider it to be incitement to violence, consider the situation posed. If you had a daughter might you not give the same advice if they felt threatened? Which is the scenario presented.
And on the basis of complaints from a frequent flyer with links to the police, Linehan was arrested by armed police, something the met no agrees was wrong.
Also, know, the balls. Which according to 'If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space' shouldn't be there.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
The houses appear to have won awards, and it looks like they were designed this way specifically to meet the passivhaus standards.
I wonder if rather than just being cheap builds, there's a struggle to hit the passivhaus with larger windows at anything like a reasonable cost.
If 'passivhaus' requires budget houses to look like that then it's not fit for purpose.
I always thought passivhaus houses had more windows than normal, to benefit from solar gain in winter. How else can they be heated passively?
Grand Designs style houses all seem to be mostly glass.* And many are explicitly aiming for passivhaus status.
* And no fecking curtains/blinds! What is it with these people? I suppose the self selection of those who want to be on TV and those happy to have people looking into their houses is a strong correlation, but surely in summer the early mornings must be hell!
Unfortunately for Hodges, he's going to come out of this looking quite bad. Whether it's fair or not, he looks like he's been downplaying what always looked the most likely outcome of the investigation.
And the police have behaved appallingly.
The police should simply have said that they didn't know. Instead, they said, "we don't know, but we're confident it's not political or terrorist." Which makes them look like idiots when they find evidence that shows different.
Someone has been arrested in connection with the death of Ann Widdecombe - that means publishing anything, including posts on X, which risks seriously prejudicing a trial, is an offence. It also doesn’t help her friends and family in obtaining justice.
No it doesn't. He's not been charged. Arresting somebody is not the serious.
You obviously don't understand the law. It's only subjudice once, the person is charged with a crime. Police arrest people all the time. It isn't that serious until you're charged.
Well. I co-wrote three editions of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists and specifically the chapter on contempt, so I think maybe I’ve got a better grip of it than you.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.
The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
It was very kind of this non political Judge to decide what the jury meant
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
If I'd paid my mortgage off (and so didn't need to worry about remortgaging at the end of my fix) I'd like to think I wouldn't care what its value was. I've no interest in selling it, I intend to live in it until death.
Someone has been arrested in connection with the death of Ann Widdecombe - that means publishing anything, including posts on X, which risks seriously prejudicing a trial, is an offence. It also doesn’t help her friends and family in obtaining justice.
No it doesn't. He's not been charged. Arresting somebody is not the serious.
You obviously don't understand the law. It's only subjudice once, the person is charged with a crime. Police arrest people all the time. It isn't that serious until you're charged.
Well. I co-wrote three editions of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists and specifically the chapter on contempt, so I think maybe I’ve got a better grip of it than you.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
US has directly struck Kharg Island oil infrastructure (western jetty pumping station + pipelines) — first confirmed hit on Iran’s core export terminal; fires visible via satellite. #OOTT
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
If I'd paid my mortgage off (and so didn't need to worry about remortgaging at the end of my fix) I'd like to think I wouldn't care what its value was. I've no interest in selling it, I intend to live in it until death.
People are weird.
My position exactly. I still have a mortage of £100K or so but hopefully will get that paid off in the next couple of years. And honestly I would be happy to see house prices much lower so my kids and their friends can all get on the housing ladder. I hope to be carried out of here feet first - at the ripe old age of 147 please!
I saw someone (sorry I forget who, but a wise person given what they said) had chosen to re-watch The Wire. Coincidently I started last night to re-watch The West Wing. It's good, and it transports you to a world where the US President isn't an arse and endangering the world. I rather recommend this therapy.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
Applies to other purchases too. If you think a product will fall in price, you delay purchase until you have too. This was demonstrated in Japan with their 'lost decades'.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
If I'd paid my mortgage off (and so didn't need to worry about remortgaging at the end of my fix) I'd like to think I wouldn't care what its value was. I've no interest in selling it, I intend to live in it until death.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Yes, that looked like a joke to me.
So comedy suffers when its deconstructed. But lets try.
The tweet - "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
If he had written "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the face." - I would have agreed with you. The reason I don't in this case is the gear shift, the change of angle.
Punch him in the balls is trying, perhaps failing, perhaps its weak, to make a joke referencing the typical height differential between the average woman and the average man who believes they are a woman.
But even if you consider it to be incitement to violence, consider the situation posed. If you had a daughter might you not give the same advice if they felt threatened? Which is the scenario presented.
And on the basis of complaints from a frequent flyer with links to the police, Linehan was arrested by armed police, something the met no agrees was wrong.
I am not personally persuaded by your argument. It's not funny, for starters! Punching someone in the balls is sensible advice. If you need to defend yourself, it is recommended to punch someone in the balls over punching them in the face. If there is no incongruity in the advice, how is it funny? The set up is one of advice: if in this situation, do X. The set up demonstrates a particular view of transwomen (that their mere presence is a "violent, abusive act"). The set up does not suggest he's going for a joke. Knowing Linehan's expressed views, it would seem worth taking his words at face value here.
In the Nottingham airport case, it's funny because it's an unserious exaggeration. This doesn't look unserious. This looks like the sort of serious comment Linehan makes.
It still looks to me that Linehan is advising people on what to do in a particular circumstance, and that advice is to commit an assault.
As I said, I was answering your specific question: was it inciting assault? If I had a daughter and she felt threatened, I would advise her to run away and avoid confrontation. But, yes, if cornered and under threat, absolutely, punch a guy in the balls is wise advice. It is OK to advise assault if the assault would be legal. One could dispute the details of the scenario Linehan describes. As I said, the authorities acknowledge it was wrong to arrest Linehan in that matter, and I am not questioning that decision.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
If I'd paid my mortgage off (and so didn't need to worry about remortgaging at the end of my fix) I'd like to think I wouldn't care what its value was. I've no interest in selling it, I intend to live in it until death.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
Applies to other purchases too. If you think a product will fall in price, you delay purchase until you have too. This was demonstrated in Japan with their 'lost decades'.
8% of Q1's mortgages were above 90% LTV. Just how many would be given out if the banks thought prices were going to drop by 5 or 10%? And how many people would be trapped be negative equity?
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
And that surely pushes the building cost up; everything is cheaper and easier to do as a continuous process rather than stop-start.
And from that, I suspect it follows that the state needs to act, at the very least, as a housebuyer of last resort, and probably as a proactive comissioner of housebuilding. I'm not sure the prospect fills me with joy, but the market failure feels impossible to unclog otherwise.
I saw someone (sorry I forget who, but a wise person given what they said) had chosen to re-watch The Wire. Coincidently I started last night to re-watch The West Wing. It's good, and it transports you to a world where the US President isn't an arse and endangering the world. I rather recommend this therapy.
Although I enjoy watching clips on YouTube, I am horribly aware that Sorkin had his thumb on the scales all the time. He wrote like an angel so I didn't care overmuch, but when he left and they switched from human interest to event-driven Santos Vs Vinick it got more exciting (if no longer stuffed full of epigrams). Some of the plot twists (Toby has an astronaut brother in a secret space shuttle, Chandler as a republican intern) didn't work, although I did like the bits with the vice-presidents, Hoynes and Bingo Bob.
I am delighted to have secured a major victory over the press barons, with the Telegraph backing down on Dan Hannan's slanderous allegation that Count Binface plans to cap the price of kebabs rather than the totally different Wigan kebabs. It is good to know that one can still triumph with the simple sword of truth and trusty shield of British fair play.
---
Dear [Sir Norfolk],
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph in relation to the article: "Count Binface is no laughing matter. He embodies why Britain is in such a mess"
We thank you for bringing the error to our attention. The article has been amended so that it now reads "He promises to cap the price of “Wigan kebabs”........."
We value your readership and thank you once again for engaging with us.
Yours sincerely, Editorial Legal & Compliance Telegraph Media Group
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
And that surely pushes the building cost up; everything is cheaper and easier to do as a continuous process rather than stop-start.
And from that, I suspect it follows that the state needs to act, at the very least, as a housebuyer of last resort, and probably as a proactive comissioner of housebuilding. I'm not sure the prospect fills me with joy, but the market failure feels impossible to unclog otherwise.
It would certainly help if the State were to introduce a new social housing/council house drive which would help maintain building flows.
I actually thought the council house sell offs as originally envisaged, with money going back into building more council houses, was a good idea. People do like owning their own home. But it failed in not reinvesting in the housing stock. Something we ought to rectify now.
Olly Robbins mounting legal challenge to his dismissal (Sky)
I'd have thought he'd win quite easily given the facts.
Robbins decided on his own initiative and contrary to normal practice to ignore vetting on Mandelson and didn't tell his boss. Then it went pear shaped. I would expect to be sacked in those circumstances.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ended in a haggle and a relatively modest settlement.
Starmer doesn't come out of the episode well either. A score draw I think.
The real problem is that politicians want plausible deniability for the decisions they take. What do you think would have happened if Robbins had done the full deep dive and presented the result to Starmer? His career would have been cooked, and we all know it.
Reminds me of Nimrod, Haddon-Cave and the aftermath
Starmer's "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions or I don't want to know" reflects badly on him. Nevertheless Robbins should be able to navigate this stuff at his level of seniority. He screwed up and paid the price. Then it becomes a negotiation over the terms of dismissal I think.
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Yes, that looked like a joke to me.
So comedy suffers when its deconstructed. But lets try.
The tweet - "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
If he had written "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the face." - I would have agreed with you. The reason I don't in this case is the gear shift, the change of angle.
Punch him in the balls is trying, perhaps failing, perhaps its weak, to make a joke referencing the typical height differential between the average woman and the average man who believes they are a woman.
But even if you consider it to be incitement to violence, consider the situation posed. If you had a daughter might you not give the same advice if they felt threatened? Which is the scenario presented.
And on the basis of complaints from a frequent flyer with links to the police, Linehan was arrested by armed police, something the met no agrees was wrong.
I am not personally persuaded by your argument. It's not funny, for starters! Punching someone in the balls is sensible advice. If you need to defend yourself, it is recommended to punch someone in the balls over punching them in the face. If there is no incongruity in the advice, how is it funny? The set up is one of advice: if in this situation, do X. The set up demonstrates a particular view of transwomen (that their mere presence is a "violent, abusive act"). The set up does not suggest he's going for a joke. Knowing Linehan's expressed views, it would seem worth taking his words at face value here.
In the Nottingham airport case, it's funny because it's an unserious exaggeration. This doesn't look unserious. This looks like the sort of serious comment Linehan makes.
It still looks to me that Linehan is advising people on what to do in a particular circumstance, and that advice is to commit an assault.
As I said, I was answering your specific question: was it inciting assault? If I had a daughter and she felt threatened, I would advise her to run away and avoid confrontation. But, yes, if cornered and under threat, absolutely, punch a guy in the balls is wise advice. It is OK to advise assault if the assault would be legal. One could dispute the details of the scenario Linehan describes. As I said, the authorities acknowledge it was wrong to arrest Linehan in that matter, and I am not questioning that decision.
Without dragging this out, I don't think everyone finds the same jokes funny. I detest 'Mrs Brown's Boys' for instance, but someone must like it as it keeps getting re-commisioned.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
The houses appear to have won awards, and it looks like they were designed this way specifically to meet the passivhaus standards.
I wonder if rather than just being cheap builds, there's a struggle to hit the passivhaus with larger windows at anything like a reasonable cost.
If 'passivhaus' requires budget houses to look like that then it's not fit for purpose.
I always thought passivhaus houses had more windows than normal, to benefit from solar gain in winter. How else can they be heated passively?
Grand Designs style houses all seem to be mostly glass.* And many are explicitly aiming for passivhaus status.
* And no fecking curtains/blinds! What is it with these people? I suppose the self selection of those who want to be on TV and those happy to have people looking into their houses is a strong correlation, but surely in summer the early mornings must be hell!
It's counterintuitive to people who have not lived in one, but keeping it cool is a far bigger challenge for Passive Houses then keeping it warm - typically if you lock it up and go on holiday it might cool down at a rate of 0.5C per day with no heating on, and the entire heating demand might be a couple of KW in winter, as there is much "free" heat - you, your family, your dogs, cooking, appliances etc.
Overheating is a particular problem in the shoulder months (read autumn and spring), partly due to low sun.
Passive effectively means "isolated from the outside environment as much as possible". Windows tend to be smaller on the sunny side and larger on the northern side (Passive in the Southern hemisphere is the other way round). Big windows on the south side mean compensation for the extra heat somehow.
There's a whole toolbox of techniques that help - starting with choosing your decrement delay (which is how fast the "heat pulse" penertates the house); it needs to be long enough such that it does not reach the inside before it retreats again overnight. One classic approach is to use celluslose (ie shredded paper) insulation rather than sheets of foam, which is heavier.
* Windows that turn opaque at the push of a button have been around for more than a decade now and and are fairly affordable . Also Grand Designs tell porkies for the sake of the crisis story - normal advice is "don't" or have enough pre-planned crises and arguments and marriage breakdowns planned in to keep them happy.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
This is another reason why I think the government should play a role in commissioning house-building, and also why it should be made easier for people to build their own home.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
If I'd paid my mortgage off (and so didn't need to worry about remortgaging at the end of my fix) I'd like to think I wouldn't care what its value was. I've no interest in selling it, I intend to live in it until death.
People are weird.
Mind you, the children like to know !!!!!
But, again, that is also weird. My parents are just turned 80 and happily still living. The last of my grandparents to die did so at 97. I could be well into my 60s before my parents die, so if I was relying on the inheritance for very much I would have spent most of my life waiting. Even my daughter could be into her 40s. We'd be looking to pass as much of the inheritance onto the great-grandchildren as possible.
Comments
This is an essential buttress of a free society.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mydjl12mwo
Now where are you on the Clacton vote.
A bit like with one historian who used 19th century England as an example of democracy putting an end to famine.
Why they can't just add insulated shutters I don't know. I wouldn't want to live in a house with tiny windows either.
Remember that the people moving in are choosing between this really cheap (but crap) property from a housing associations or paying a lot more for a privately rented home so crap is a valid option because someone will take it.
#pbfreespeech
Given the increasing uselessness of Google it may have been useless anyway, but let's battle until the end, yes?
I does seem strange the police said there was "no evidence" of a terrorist motive. Maybe they hadn't looked for any. Driving all the way from Rotherham to Devon and back looks like a targeted hit rather than a burglary gone wrong. And as the victim is a politician, terrorism looks likely, under the sweeping definition we now have under British law, ie any violence to a political end
The PB site is built on Wordpress, comments were shifted a long time ago to Vanilla for various reasons.
The plan is to shift the comments back into wordpress against the already existing headers / articles but underneath each article the comments will appear directly rather than within an iframe...
I remain unclear. Is it that you think all of these women were lying and Trump has never sexually assaulted anyone; or do you think that Trump sexually assaulting women doesn't make him evil?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
It is a real shame, I would have preferred that instead norms of behaviour (like not stealing, or praising a horrific organisation) could have been maintained, but they haven't.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
I believe the Official IRA was right to take up arms at the beginning of the Troubles, as the Stormont government certainly wasn't going to prevent Catholics from being burnt out of their homes. Am I now a criminal for saying so?
The evidence from the Epstein Files and witness testimony including statutory rape accusations, which appear to have credence, from girls as young as thirteen slides quite high up the "evil" scale.
Even if you dismiss Carroll, Russia, sedition, racism, the Iran war, disdain for Zelensky, no check on Netanyahu evil, ICE murders of innocents, voter fraud, a flagrant disregard for the law, the destruction of the people's Whitehouse and the industrial scale domestic and internation corruption, surely what we have seen (from what has been so far released) from the Epstein files is pretty "evil".
Security minister Angela Eagle wrote in a written statement to parliament that the UK has "identified activity linked to the IRGC involving threats to life and intimidation on UK soil".
Another group called The Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right (IMCR), which is linked to Iran, is also being designated by the government following a spate of attacks on the Jewish community in Britain.
And the volunteer corps of Russia's GRU (foreign military intelligence agency) is also being designated under this legislation following "sabotage and other activity directed against the UK and Europe"."
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-burnham-starmer-labour-tories-badenoch-farage-12593360
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
Russia is now using its strategic fuel reserves and so the fuel situation in some cities in western Russia has improved in recent days. The number of fuel stations closed in Yaroslavl has declined from 80% 72 hours ago to 45% today as the most striking example.
Ukraine hit an oil storage depot in Stavropol last night after hitting it a few days ago. Ukraine have hit a lot of storage sites and pumping stations as well as refineries, as it makes it harder for Russia to move the supplies it does have around.
https://x.com/GBCLopi/status/2076573442816589900
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-orders-e-jean-carroll-be-paid-5-8m-in-trump-sex-abuse-and-defamation-case
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
I agree with your discomfort about the potential breadth and lack of clarity on support of a proscribed organisation, though.
The jury says “No he isn’t”
It’s really actually that simple.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
Not to mention having light inside.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.
The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
Russian refining volumes are way down, so Russia has massively increased the amount of oil loaded onto ships, but a lot of that oil is simply stored at sea, waiting for a buyer. If current trends continue Russia will run out of tankers to load crude onto and production will fall even more.
I wonder if rather than just being cheap builds, there's a struggle to hit the passivhaus with larger windows at anything like a reasonable cost.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The tweet - "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
If he had written "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the face." - I would have agreed with you. The reason I don't in this case is the gear shift, the change of angle.
Punch him in the balls is trying, perhaps failing, perhaps its weak, to make a joke referencing the typical height differential between the average woman and the average man who believes they are a woman.
But even if you consider it to be incitement to violence, consider the situation posed. If you had a daughter might you not give the same advice if they felt threatened? Which is the scenario presented.
And on the basis of complaints from a frequent flyer with links to the police, Linehan was arrested by armed police, something the met no agrees was wrong.
* And no fecking curtains/blinds! What is it with these people? I suppose the self selection of those who want to be on TV and those happy to have people looking into their houses is a strong correlation, but surely in summer the early mornings must be hell!
David Banks
@DBanksy
Someone has been arrested in connection with the death of Ann Widdecombe - that means publishing anything, including posts on X, which risks seriously prejudicing a trial, is an offence. It also doesn’t help her friends and family in obtaining justice.
Nigel XYY man
@NigelXYYMan
No it doesn't. He's not been charged. Arresting somebody is not the serious.
You obviously don't understand the law. It's only subjudice once, the person is charged with a crime. Police arrest people all the time. It isn't that serious until you're charged.
David Banks
@DBanksy
Well. I co-wrote three editions of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists and specifically the chapter on contempt, so I think maybe I’ve got a better grip of it than you.
https://x.com/DBanksy/status/2076369858426466347
People are weird.
US has directly struck Kharg Island oil infrastructure (western jetty pumping station + pipelines) — first confirmed hit on Iran’s core export terminal; fires visible via satellite. #OOTT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades
In the Nottingham airport case, it's funny because it's an unserious exaggeration. This doesn't look unserious. This looks like the sort of serious comment Linehan makes.
It still looks to me that Linehan is advising people on what to do in a particular circumstance, and that advice is to commit an assault.
As I said, I was answering your specific question: was it inciting assault? If I had a daughter and she felt threatened, I would advise her to run away and avoid confrontation. But, yes, if cornered and under threat, absolutely, punch a guy in the balls is wise advice. It is OK to advise assault if the assault would be legal. One could dispute the details of the scenario Linehan describes. As I said, the authorities acknowledge it was wrong to arrest Linehan in that matter, and I am not questioning that decision.
And from that, I suspect it follows that the state needs to act, at the very least, as a housebuyer of last resort, and probably as a proactive comissioner of housebuilding. I'm not sure the prospect fills me with joy, but the market failure feels impossible to unclog otherwise.
---
Dear [Sir Norfolk],
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph in relation to the article: "Count Binface is no laughing matter. He embodies why Britain is in such a mess"
We thank you for bringing the error to our attention. The article has been amended so that it now reads "He promises to cap the price of “Wigan kebabs”........."
We value your readership and thank you once again for engaging with us.
Yours sincerely,
Editorial Legal & Compliance
Telegraph Media Group
NEW THREAD
Potential policy for Binface maybe.
I actually thought the council house sell offs as originally envisaged, with money going back into building more council houses, was a good idea. People do like owning their own home. But it failed in not reinvesting in the housing stock. Something we ought to rectify now.
Overheating is a particular problem in the shoulder months (read autumn and spring), partly due to low sun.
Passive effectively means "isolated from the outside environment as much as possible". Windows tend to be smaller on the sunny side and larger on the northern side (Passive in the Southern hemisphere is the other way round). Big windows on the south side mean compensation for the extra heat somehow.
There's a whole toolbox of techniques that help - starting with choosing your decrement delay (which is how fast the "heat pulse" penertates the house); it needs to be long enough such that it does not reach the inside before it retreats again overnight. One classic approach is to use celluslose (ie shredded paper) insulation rather than sheets of foam, which is heavier.
* Windows that turn opaque at the push of a button have been around for more than a decade now and and are fairly affordable . Also Grand Designs tell porkies for the sake of the crisis story - normal advice is "don't" or have enough pre-planned crises and arguments and marriage breakdowns planned in to keep them happy.