Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
The text I have seen is:
From this point forward, the United States will be known as the "GUARDIAN OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ," and in this capacity and for the sake of FAIRNESS, will receive compensation of 20% of the value of all goods transported for any expenses necessary to ensure the security and protection of this extremely unstable region of the world.
I see the word "all" and not the word "Iran".
Where are you seeing different?
How is the US military the "guardian" of the Straits?
He lives in a different world to the real world clearly.
Maybe his core team just are not prepared to brief him with anything like the reality just like his bestie, Putin?
I honestly don't know. Maybe it just sounded good to him this morning and it will all be forgotten when people say no.
But for US allies in the region who are continuing to see Iranian missiles and drones heading their way, and exports disrupted, because of a war Trump started, they must be pretty alarmed at having to deal with this diplomatically too.
I'd think they might start to wonder whether being allies with the US is more trouble than it's worth. And who else can they turn to? China?
I don't have a good feeling about it whichever way you look at it.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
You don't prove a negative.
It was not proven, that is not the same as proven not to happen.
He should be called a sexual abuser not a rapist IMHO as that is what he was found guilty in. And its not a better thing.
He wasn’t found guilty, it was a civil rather than a criminal trial.
This conversation started when someone said “He’s a rapist” and I pointed out that not only was there no evidence to support that assertion, but that people had been sued in the US for making it.
I also said that he’s a scumbag personality that I do my best to avoid.
I just don’t think he’s Hitler. Putin and Khomeni I put in that category, but few others.
A federal judge NULLIFIES the purported “settlement” behind Trump’s $1.776B slush fund, finding there was never a “case or controversy” — and referring his attorney for possible professional discipline.
Judge Williams also directs the clerk to send a copy of her order to where bar complaints against Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward were filed — in New York and D.C., respectively.
Todd Blanche is the current acting AG of the US pending his confirmation. In any normal country that would be the end of his application. He is a party to attempting to defraud the US taxpayer of over $1.7bn. Of course, the US under Trump is not a normal country.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
The text I have seen is:
From this point forward, the United States will be known as the "GUARDIAN OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ," and in this capacity and for the sake of FAIRNESS, will receive compensation of 20% of the value of all goods transported for any expenses necessary to ensure the security and protection of this extremely unstable region of the world.
I see the word "all" and not the word "Iran".
Where are you seeing different?
How is the US military the "guardian" of the Straits?
He lives in a different world to the real world clearly.
Maybe his core team just are not prepared to brief him with anything like the reality just like his bestie, Putin?
I honestly don't know. Maybe it just sounded good to him this morning and it will all be forgotten when people say no.
But for US allies in the region who are continuing to see Iranian missiles and drones heading their way, and exports disrupted, because of a war Trump started, they must be pretty alarmed at having to deal with this diplomatically too.
I'd think they might start to wonder whether being allies with the US is more trouble than it's worth. And who else can they turn to? China?
I don't have a good feeling about it whichever way you look at it.
On your last point: whole piece on exactly this in NY Times today:
"The chilling effect is spreading. As Mr. Trump muses about making Canada a 51st state, it has embarked on a “new strategic partnership” with China, opened its market for the first time to 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles and joined a more than $150 billion European defense fund aimed at breaking the dependency on the American defense industry."
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
Starmer as I understand it will stay PM until next Monday anyway ie after the world cup final. Though if England won the world cup it would be Burnham who benefited from any bounce
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
It would be better to just reduce the VAT threshold.
I'm at a loss as to what this current plan achieves other than 1 year where a lot of money is received as 2 years of tax is paid at the same time.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
Do you think this transparent quibbling over the exact legal nature of Trump's offence makes Trump look any better?
Do you think it makes your claim not to be an uncritical Trump fan any more believable?
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
My theory is that HMRC are completely staffed with Barstewards of the first water who have never had to run a business or pay their accountant in their lives.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
So you can call trump a rapist but not "liable for rape"? I do not quite see how that works. But you call him what you want, thx for the answer.
I explained how that works. The rest is your problem.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
"NOT found" rather than "found NOT" ...to have engaged in rape.
"The government says UK passport holders will be allowed to use e-gates at Zurich airport from as soon as the end of this year - with Geneva and Basel airports set to announce a timetable for adoption shortly.
The scheme is separate to Switzerland's implementation of the EU's new border control system - the Entry/Exit System (EES), which will allow UK citizens to use EU eGates."
Baffling. Is the EES really going so badly this is worth negotiating?
Also not clear how the roaming works. Walk into the wrong part of Basel and you're on the wrong tower...
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Starmer as I understand it will stay PM until next Monday anyway ie after the world cup final. Though if England won the world cup it would be Burnham who benefited from any bounce
Yes. The hand over at the Palace is due on Monday 20th after some Lab/TUC conference or other has rubberstamped Burnham at the weekend.
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
It would be better to just reduce the VAT threshold.
I'm at a loss as to what this current plan achieves other than 1 year where a lot of money is received as 2 years of tax is paid at the same time.
A cynic might say that that’s exactly what they're trying to achieve.
The latest from the paragon of level headed chief executive virtue.
Trump on Iran: "Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side, because, you know, he's a -- well, let's not say. Let's leave that for another time." https://x.com/atrupar/status/2076642887014498309
The latest from the paragon of level headed chief executive virtue.
Trump on Iran: "Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side, because, you know, he's a -- well, let's not say. Let's leave that for another time." https://x.com/atrupar/status/2076642887014498309
If we can't call Trump a rapist can we at least call him a racist?
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
@Sandpit has said several people have been sued for calling Trump a rapist. Trump hasn't won such a case in court, and he's lost every subsequent Carroll case or appeal.
The latest from the paragon of level headed chief executive virtue.
Trump on Iran: "Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side, because, you know, he's a -- well, let's not say. Let's leave that for another time." https://x.com/atrupar/status/2076642887014498309
He'd lose zero support if he had finished that thought, no matter what it was, so curious he did not.
The latest from the paragon of level headed chief executive virtue.
Trump on Iran: "Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side, because, you know, he's a -- well, let's not say. Let's leave that for another time." https://x.com/atrupar/status/2076642887014498309
He'd lose zero support if he had finished that thought, no matter what it was, so curious he did not.
Maybe he couldn't finish the thought as it leaked out of his head midway through.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
Iran was planning to charge $2 per barrel as I recall, so I suppose 3% or so. Difference is they will likely actually charge this if oil starts flowing through Hormuz again. Also I think shippers would broadly be OK to pay it as a cost of doing business.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
The text I have seen is:
From this point forward, the United States will be known as the "GUARDIAN OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ," and in this capacity and for the sake of FAIRNESS, will receive compensation of 20% of the value of all goods transported for any expenses necessary to ensure the security and protection of this extremely unstable region of the world.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
Iran was planning to charge $2 per barrel as I recall, so I suppose 3% or so. Difference is they will likely actually charge this if oil starts flowing through Hormuz again. Also I think shippers would broadly be OK to pay it as a cost of doing business.
20% isn't $2-3 it's $14-20++
And I wonder how much makes it's way into Trump's back pocket..
I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)
Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.
I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.
Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.
Coming from Stourbridge he should have been a Baggie, or god forbid, a Dingle.
England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.
It's all about the actual tournament.
3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.
Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
The winner of the World Cup will of course be the United States. Trump is sorting out with FIFA just now.
I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.
Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.
Coming from Stourbridge he should have been a Baggie, or god forbid, a Dingle.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
Iran was planning to charge $2 per barrel as I recall, so I suppose 3% or so. Difference is they will likely actually charge this if oil starts flowing through Hormuz again. Also I think shippers would broadly be OK to pay it as a cost of doing business.
20% isn't $2-3 it's $14-20++
And I wonder how much makes it's way into Trump's back pocket..
None of it because it's not going to happen.
The reasons why Trump caved on the MoU are still there.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
You don't prove a negative.
It was not proven, that is not the same as proven not to happen.
He should be called a sexual abuser not a rapist IMHO as that is what he was found guilty in. And its not a better thing.
The Aussie soccer fans were happy to chant about him being a sex offender...
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
My theory is that HMRC are completely staffed with Barstewards of the first water who have never had to run a business or pay their accountant in their lives.
Yes, but they've always been like that.
What's new is that this elected government is too ignorant of the private sector, or indeed of anything except shovelling cash to scroungers, to act as any kind of a constraint on them.
The Conservatives were much more likely to listen to feedback from small businesses than Labour, even if they often didn't act on it.
That's why, for instance, the Conservatives told HMRC where to go when Making Tax Digital was first proposed.
But Labour hate the private sector in general and entrepreneurs in particular with a passion only equalled by their desire to steal their money.
Starmer as I understand it will stay PM until next Monday anyway ie after the world cup final. Though if England won the world cup it would be Burnham who benefited from any bounce
Of course we only win World Cups under Labour governments.
The latest from the paragon of level headed chief executive virtue.
Trump on Iran: "Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side, because, you know, he's a -- well, let's not say. Let's leave that for another time." https://x.com/atrupar/status/2076642887014498309
He'd lose zero support if he had finished that thought, no matter what it was, so curious he did not.
Leaving a sentence unfinished can be clever sometimes as it allows people to fill in the gap with whatever they want, all while keeping plausible deniability.
Hormuz. The media are again reporting Donald Trump's inane ramblings on 'Truth' as serious developments in the saga. It isn't open. The US won't be the Guardians of it. Nobody will be paying them 20%.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
Iran was planning to charge $2 per barrel as I recall, so I suppose 3% or so. Difference is they will likely actually charge this if oil starts flowing through Hormuz again. Also I think shippers would broadly be OK to pay it as a cost of doing business.
20% isn't $2-3 it's $14-20++
And I wonder how much makes it's way into Trump's back pocket..
None of it because it's not going to happen.
The reasons why Trump caved on the MoU are still there.
Starmer as I understand it will stay PM until next Monday anyway ie after the world cup final. Though if England won the world cup it would be Burnham who benefited from any bounce
Of course we only win World Cups under Labour governments.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
Do you think this transparent quibbling over the exact legal nature of Trump's offence makes Trump look any better?
Do you think it makes your claim not to be an uncritical Trump fan any more believable?
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
My theory is that HMRC are completely staffed with Barstewards of the first water who have never had to run a business or pay their accountant in their lives.
Yes, but they've always been like that.
What's new is that this elected government is too ignorant of the private sector, or indeed of anything except shovelling cash to scroungers, to act as any kind of a constraint on them.
The Conservatives were much more likely to listen to feedback from small businesses than Labour, even if they often didn't act on it.
That's why, for instance, the Conservatives told HMRC where to go when Making Tax Digital was first proposed.
But Labour hate the private sector in general and entrepreneurs in particular with a passion only equalled by their desire to steal their money.
A new Defence Universities Alliance with 35 UK universities will help strengthen defence research, build critical skills and support the UK's future defence capability.
Its great, but it needs to overcome the fact that university engineering and science departments are dominated by foreign students these days and, as foreign nationals, those students can't work in any sensitive defence areas.
Yeah, I know. My granddaughter is dual national (Britich/Spanish) and just graduated MEng at Durham. She was unable to secure an industrial placement at any UK engineering company because they all had some defence work and the rules don't allow dual nationals ...
Starmer as I understand it will stay PM until next Monday anyway ie after the world cup final. Though if England won the world cup it would be Burnham who benefited from any bounce
Of course we only win World Cups under Labour governments.
That, politics aside, is a stone cold fact.
we won the 2019 World Cup under a Tory government.
It was very entertaining too, went to a Super Over.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
You don't prove a negative.
It was not proven, that is not the same as proven not to happen.
He should be called a sexual abuser not a rapist IMHO as that is what he was found guilty in. And its not a better thing.
He wasn’t found guilty, it was a civil rather than a criminal trial.
This conversation started when someone said “He’s a rapist” and I pointed out that not only was there no evidence to support that assertion, but that people had been sued in the US for making it.
I also said that he’s a scumbag personality that I do my best to avoid.
I just don’t think he’s Hitler. Putin and Khomeni I put in that category, but few others.
you do seem to spend a lot of energy defending someone you think is a scumbag
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
My theory is that HMRC are completely staffed with Barstewards of the first water who have never had to run a business or pay their accountant in their lives.
Yes, but they've always been like that.
What's new is that this elected government is too ignorant of the private sector, or indeed of anything except shovelling cash to scroungers, to act as any kind of a constraint on them.
The Conservatives were much more likely to listen to feedback from small businesses than Labour, even if they often didn't act on it.
That's why, for instance, the Conservatives told HMRC where to go when Making Tax Digital was first proposed.
But Labour hate the private sector in general and entrepreneurs in particular with a passion only equalled by their desire to steal their money.
Tories eat babies though.
See, I can do it too.
Making baby-eating digital will be in our next manifesto.
Hormuz. The media are again reporting Donald Trump's inane ramblings on 'Truth' as serious developments in the saga. It isn't open. The US won't be the Guardians of it. Nobody will be paying them 20%.
That is all true and yet Kuwait etc all now have the issue of how they tell Trump and the US that it isn't going to happen, all while Iran bombs them for being a US ally.
It's all a huge pain in the arse. And it doesn't help them get their oil out.
And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest. Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.
..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump. A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...
Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law. That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.
You don't prove a negative.
It was not proven, that is not the same as proven not to happen.
He should be called a sexual abuser not a rapist IMHO as that is what he was found guilty in. And its not a better thing.
He wasn’t found guilty, it was a civil rather than a criminal trial.
This conversation started when someone said “He’s a rapist” and I pointed out that not only was there no evidence to support that assertion, but that people had been sued in the US for making it.
I also said that he’s a scumbag personality that I do my best to avoid.
I just don’t think he’s Hitler. Putin and Khomeni I put in that category, but few others.
you do seem to spend a lot of energy defending someone you think is a scumbag
All the more so given that those of us who consider Trump a rapist are hardly likely to be swayed by Sandpit's defence. Particularly since he persists in only quoting part of the court findings.
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
It would be better to just reduce the VAT threshold.
I'm at a loss as to what this current plan achieves other than 1 year where a lot of money is received as 2 years of tax is paid at the same time.
Time that to be just before the GE and suddenly you generate a bunch of positive headlines.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
Police have arrested a 28-year-old man on suspicion of murdering Ann Widdecombe. Officers say he was arrested in Rotherham and the killing was not politically motivated.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
caroline wheeler @cazjwheeler Exclusive: Nigel Farage turned down taxpayer-funded security including a bodyguard, car and trained driver last year, The i Paper has learned.
The Reform UK leader was offered the protection following police advice on the threats he faced.
He had already been receiving publicly-funded security prior to this, and felt that his package had been downgraded.
It would have given Farage a similar level of security to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and some high-profile Cabinet ministers.
Farage declined the offer because he considered the protection to be inadequate.
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
My theory is that HMRC are completely staffed with Barstewards of the first water who have never had to run a business or pay their accountant in their lives.
Yes, but they've always been like that.
What's new is that this elected government is too ignorant of the private sector, or indeed of anything except shovelling cash to scroungers, to act as any kind of a constraint on them.
The Conservatives were much more likely to listen to feedback from small businesses than Labour, even if they often didn't act on it.
That's why, for instance, the Conservatives told HMRC where to go when Making Tax Digital was first proposed.
But Labour hate the private sector in general and entrepreneurs in particular with a passion only equalled by their desire to steal their money.
Tories eat babies though.
See, I can do it too.
Making baby-eating digital will be in our next manifesto.
Lol. Wouldn't surprise me one iota. With tax breaks.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.
It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.
I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.
For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.
If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.
*pauses*
*thinks*
You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
It's a plan to make running a non-VAT business as difficult as running a VAT business, thereby paving the way for the VAT threshold to be radically reduced. My theory, anyway.
My theory is that HMRC are completely staffed with Barstewards of the first water who have never had to run a business or pay their accountant in their lives.
Yes, but they've always been like that.
What's new is that this elected government is too ignorant of the private sector, or indeed of anything except shovelling cash to scroungers, to act as any kind of a constraint on them.
The Conservatives were much more likely to listen to feedback from small businesses than Labour, even if they often didn't act on it.
That's why, for instance, the Conservatives told HMRC where to go when Making Tax Digital was first proposed.
But Labour hate the private sector in general and entrepreneurs in particular with a passion only equalled by their desire to steal their money.
Tories eat babies though.
See, I can do it too.
Making baby-eating digital will be in our next manifesto.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.
I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.
Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
Iran was planning to charge $2 per barrel as I recall, so I suppose 3% or so. Difference is they will likely actually charge this if oil starts flowing through Hormuz again. Also I think shippers would broadly be OK to pay it as a cost of doing business.
20% isn't $2-3 it's $14-20++
And I wonder how much makes it's way into Trump's back pocket..
None of it because it's not going to happen.
The reasons why Trump caved on the MoU are still there.
Because he is weak and 🌮
Because his Iran adventure was stupid.
Turns out keeping Middle East oil flowing was the most important thing for the US (and for the rest of us) and the Iranians can switch it off, and don't care too much if they do. So if you want the oil you need to do a deal, which will be largely on Iranian terms.
Not only is Trump incapable of 3D chess, he doesn't know how to do tiddlywinks either
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
According to Andrew Pierce: So finally police concede what we have always suspected. Ann Widdecombe was murdered because of her right wing views. What has happened to this country? https://x.com/toryboypierce/status/2076668348176155057
I can't find any record of the police saying this.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
Just been reminded by Facebook that it’s fifteen years since I saw Mavis Staples at Under The Bridge (club underneath Chelsea’s ground
She’s still going strong. I’d be astonished to see a better singer in their eighties - I saw her a couple of years ago at, I think, 84, and she was still the best singer ever
She’s touring again this summer. If you have a chance to see her, I’d recommend it above any other gigs
She is an irreplaceable legend
When I saw her at Under The Bridge, she held my hand because I was at the front. I got some nice pictures
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
Theresa May's former chief of staff loses the Tory whip after 'slagging off' Kemi Badenoch's efforts to toughen the partys stance on human rights and net zero"
I thought motive (along with means and opportunity) was part of building a case rather than part of the charge. You charge someone with murder, don't you, not murder done because of xyz. Yes, the reason can also constitute an aggravating or mitigating factor (racial, political, provoked etc) but I don't really get why the police should feel the need to pronounce on motive before any charges have been laid.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
Almost like they understand PR and social media better than the 80 year old.
The stain on humanity has now set a precedent with the charge. And the Iranians can now look much more reasonable with a much lower charge . Trump really is fxcking clueless .
According to Andrew Pierce: So finally police concede what we have always suspected. Ann Widdecombe was murdered because of her right wing views. What has happened to this country? https://x.com/toryboypierce/status/2076668348176155057
I can't find any record of the police saying this.
Indeed it may well turn out that Widdecombe was not right wing enough for the murderer.
I am sure that all the PB usual suspects will applaud the police for nipping this planned terrorism in the bud:
I thought motive (along with means and opportunity) was part of building a case rather than part of the charge. You charge someone with murder, don't you, not murder done because of xyz. Yes, the reason can also constitute an aggravating or mitigating factor (racial, political, provoked etc) but I don't really get why the police should feel the need to pronounce on motive before any charges have been laid.
Indeed, that will emerge in time, until then everyone bloviating about motivation is hardly helpful, much as I love a good bloviation.
I thought motive (along with means and opportunity) was part of building a case rather than part of the charge. You charge someone with murder, don't you, not murder done because of xyz. Yes, the reason can also constitute an aggravating or mitigating factor (racial, political, provoked etc) but I don't really get why the police should feel the need to pronounce on motive before any charges have been laid.
Isn't it perhaps due to the other charges against him?
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
Narrator: The police spent 24 hours saying they had no evidence of political motive but had an "open mind"
I can't see anything wrong in Tim's reasoning.
I'm entirely unsurprised that you don't.
But why do you think the police not providing constant speculations is 'politically-motivated news management'?
We can often see that there is reason to suspect more lies behind an event. Why is it disgraceful that the police don't prioritise satisfying your speculations.
In case people have forgotten she died less than a week ago - even in this modern age, it is not as though they've been slow rolling the news updates.
I thought motive (along with means and opportunity) was part of building a case rather than part of the charge. You charge someone with murder, don't you, not murder done because of xyz. Yes, the reason can also constitute an aggravating or mitigating factor (racial, political, provoked etc) but I don't really get why the police should feel the need to pronounce on motive before any charges have been laid.
Isn't it perhaps due to the other charges against him?
But that's a separate subsequent development. I'm talking about police to media comms when a murder investigation is launched.
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
According to Andrew Pierce: So finally police concede what we have always suspected. Ann Widdecombe was murdered because of her right wing views. What has happened to this country? https://x.com/toryboypierce/status/2076668348176155057
I can't find any record of the police saying this.
Indeed it may well turn out that Widdecombe was not right wing enough for the murderer.
I am sure that all the PB usual suspects will applaud the police for nipping this planned terrorism in the bud:
The report of this on Sky just demonstrates how dangerously we are divided by the extremes
Widdecombe's murder and this planned attack on Muslims demands equal condemnation and for all politicians to wake up and recognise the threat to the fabric of our society
Social media is toxic and the things being said by the extremes are not acceptable in a civilised society
David Cameron was right about tweets, but they seem to be far more provocative and not sure how it is possible to put the genie back in the bottle
"Did the European aristocracy blame the print media for its loss of power in the 18th and 19th centuries?"
Answer:
"Yes, European aristocrats largely blamed the print media for eroding their status. They saw pamphlets and newspapers as dangerous tools that spread rebellious ideas to the lower classes. This loss of power began during the Enlightenment and exploded during the French Revolution in 1789."
Very interesting. Those in power blaming the latest forms of media for their loss of influence.
I thought motive (along with means and opportunity) was part of building a case rather than part of the charge. You charge someone with murder, don't you, not murder done because of xyz. Yes, the reason can also constitute an aggravating or mitigating factor (racial, political, provoked etc) but I don't really get why the police should feel the need to pronounce on motive before any charges have been laid.
Indeed, that will emerge in time, until then everyone bloviating about motivation is hardly helpful, much as I love a good bloviation.
I'm old school. I share the curiosity about 'why' but I don't think the police have a duty to tell me. The main thing is they catch the guy. The details will then emerge in due course.
According to Andrew Pierce: So finally police concede what we have always suspected. Ann Widdecombe was murdered because of her right wing views. What has happened to this country? https://x.com/toryboypierce/status/2076668348176155057
I can't find any record of the police saying this.
Indeed it may well turn out that Widdecombe was not right wing enough for the murderer.
I am sure that all the PB usual suspects will applaud the police for nipping this planned terrorism in the bud:
What's most worrying about the BBC story is the number of arrests made - twelve, spread around the country - which hardly suggests a lone wolf setting out on an anti-Islam crusade, but something rather better organised.
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
Just been reminded by Facebook that it’s fifteen years since I saw Mavis Staples at Under The Bridge (club underneath Chelsea’s ground
She’s still going strong. I’d be astonished to see a better singer in their eighties - I saw her a couple of years ago at, I think, 84, and she was still the best singer ever
She’s touring again this summer. If you have a chance to see her, I’d recommend it above any other gigs
She is an irreplaceable legend
When I saw her at Under The Bridge, she held my hand because I was at the front. I got some nice pictures
The best Mavis video of all time is from 1971 in Ghana; When Will We Be Paid
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
I've never seen before a man castrated by a Tweet.
Bloody experts. I though we had had enough of them?
A reminder that the “experts” quote was after Gove met an alleged expert in education in his department. Who demanded a large pile of money to be spent on something the expert couldn’t define. And couldn’t define the expected result, either.
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
I've already asked loads of questions, none of the answers will fill you with confidence.
Is this 20% charge based on? Value of load? Made up number? What? Who gets it? Trump personally (very likely) or the US government (very unlikely). Is this just a protection racket? Can you decline to pay it? If so, what will the US Navy do? If you do pay it, and the Iranians blow up your ship, will you get a refund? Does the US Navy have the capacity to escort 200 ships per day through the Strait? (Okay, this is a leading question - the answer to this is fuck no, no it doesn't. Not if it pulled every ship in the US fleet to the Strait, it would still be insufficient - the US only has 233 combat ships, this isn't anywhere near fuck enough) Will the US Navy do what it has steadfastly refused to do for the last three months and send 1.... just 1... ship into the Strait?
When inflation rises by 20% (plus the rest), do we get to blame Donald Trump?
Theresa May's former chief of staff loses the Tory whip after 'slagging off' Kemi Badenoch's efforts to toughen the partys stance on human rights and net zero"
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
Is the bit in bold a joke?
It's why they never arrest Gaza activists. Do keep up!
Comments
But for US allies in the region who are continuing to see Iranian missiles and drones heading their way, and exports disrupted, because of a war Trump started, they must be pretty alarmed at having to deal with this diplomatically too.
I'd think they might start to wonder whether being allies with the US is more trouble than it's worth. And who else can they turn to? China?
I don't have a good feeling about it whichever way you look at it.
This conversation started when someone said “He’s a rapist” and I pointed out that not only was there no evidence to support that assertion, but that people had been sued in the US for making it.
I also said that he’s a scumbag personality that I do my best to avoid.
I just don’t think he’s Hitler. Putin and Khomeni I put in that category, but few others.
The World Is Cutting Ties With America. It’s Already Costing Us.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/12/opinion/america-trump-nato-europe-world.html
"The chilling effect is spreading. As Mr. Trump muses about making Canada a 51st state, it has embarked on a “new strategic partnership” with China, opened its market for the first time to 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles and joined a more than $150 billion European defense fund aimed at breaking the dependency on the American defense industry."
Ukraine could do with stepping up its long-range sanctions because Trump continues to help Putin.
I'm at a loss as to what this current plan achieves other than 1 year where a lot of money is received as 2 years of tax is paid at the same time.
Do you think it makes your claim not to be an uncritical Trump fan any more believable?
The rest is your problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c621p9yjz1zo
"The government says UK passport holders will be allowed to use e-gates at Zurich airport from as soon as the end of this year - with Geneva and Basel airports set to announce a timetable for adoption shortly.
The scheme is separate to Switzerland's implementation of the EU's new border control system - the Entry/Exit System (EES), which will allow UK citizens to use EU eGates."
Baffling. Is the EES really going so badly this is worth negotiating?
Also not clear how the roaming works. Walk into the wrong part of Basel and you're on the wrong tower...
Stephanopoulos was careless, and left them with a commercial dilemma.
Trump on Iran: "Obama was the worst of all because Obama actually went to their side, because, you know, he's a -- well, let's not say. Let's leave that for another time."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2076642887014498309
@Sandpit has said several people have been sued for calling Trump a rapist. Trump hasn't won such a case in court, and he's lost every subsequent Carroll case or appeal.
A nice classic bottle of High Commisioner from Sainsburys never fails to hit the mark
And I wonder how much makes it's way into Trump's back pocket..
He knew which side his bread was buttered !!
The reasons why Trump caved on the MoU are still there.
What's new is that this elected government is too ignorant of the private sector, or indeed of anything except shovelling cash to scroungers, to act as any kind of a constraint on them.
The Conservatives were much more likely to listen to feedback from small businesses than Labour, even if they often didn't act on it.
That's why, for instance, the Conservatives told HMRC where to go when Making Tax Digital was first proposed.
But Labour hate the private sector in general and entrepreneurs in particular with a passion only equalled by their desire to steal their money.
Trump rarely cares about the latter though.
Her solution will be to stop working. It is that simple.
Of course, that means the big consultancies that charge 2 or 3 times her rate for shoddy work will be quids in. I suppose that's the point.
See, I can do it too.
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2076122763153059870
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
It was very entertaining too, went to a Super Over.
Was it social media? Totally rotted their brains spending every minute scrolling their phones in the echo chamber?
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
@montie
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect from what was publicly known that there was much more to Ann Widdecombe's killing than randomness or misfortune. One can only conclude that politically-motivated news management of Ann's death was the priority of police chiefs. And that is as disgraceful as it is, I'm sad to say, completely unsurprising.
https://x.com/montie/status/2076714173451657387
Narrator: The police spent 24 hours saying they had no evidence of political motive but had an "open mind"
It's all a huge pain in the arse. And it doesn't help them get their oil out.
“ POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
20% is of course too much. We will be fair”
https://x.com/araghchi/status/2076728062662557961?s=61
https://news.sky.com/video/in-full-latest-police-statement-on-widdecombe-murder-probe-13562758
Police have arrested a 28-year-old man on suspicion of murdering Ann Widdecombe. Officers say he was arrested in Rotherham and the killing was not politically motivated.
Narrator: Officers did not say that.
Almost like they understand PR and social media better than the 80 year old.
caroline wheeler
@cazjwheeler
Exclusive: Nigel Farage turned down taxpayer-funded security including a bodyguard, car and trained driver last year, The i Paper has learned.
The Reform UK leader was offered the protection following police advice on the threats he faced.
He had already been receiving publicly-funded security prior to this, and felt that his package had been downgraded.
It would have given Farage a similar level of security to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and some high-profile Cabinet ministers.
Farage declined the offer because he considered the protection to be inadequate.
https://x.com/cazjwheeler/status/2076723260876587383
Turns out keeping Middle East oil flowing was the most important thing for the US (and for the rest of us) and the Iranians can switch it off, and don't care too much if they do. So if you want the oil you need to do a deal, which will be largely on Iranian terms.
Not only is Trump incapable of 3D chess, he doesn't know how to do tiddlywinks either
The Iranians just make a complete mug of Trump.
So finally police concede what we have always suspected. Ann Widdecombe was murdered because of her right wing views. What has happened to this country?
https://x.com/toryboypierce/status/2076668348176155057
I can't find any record of the police saying this.
She’s still going strong. I’d be astonished to see a better singer in their eighties - I saw her a couple of years ago at, I think, 84, and she was still the best singer ever
She’s touring again this summer. If you have a chance to see her, I’d recommend it above any other gigs
She is an irreplaceable legend
When I saw her at Under The Bridge, she held my hand because I was at the front. I got some nice pictures
Then it just CLIX.
Theresa May's former chief of staff loses the Tory whip after 'slagging off' Kemi Badenoch's efforts to toughen the partys stance on human rights and net zero"
https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/2076701752057868685
I am sure that all the PB usual suspects will applaud the police for nipping this planned terrorism in the bud:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl20x1ggpo
But why do you think the police not providing constant speculations is 'politically-motivated news management'?
We can often see that there is reason to suspect more lies behind an event. Why is it disgraceful that the police don't prioritise satisfying your speculations.
In case people have forgotten she died less than a week ago - even in this modern age, it is not as though they've been slow rolling the news updates.
The report of this on Sky just demonstrates how dangerously we are divided by the extremes
Widdecombe's murder and this planned attack on Muslims demands equal condemnation and for all politicians to wake up and recognise the threat to the fabric of our society
Social media is toxic and the things being said by the extremes are not acceptable in a civilised society
David Cameron was right about tweets, but they seem to be far more provocative and not sure how it is possible to put the genie back in the bottle
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
Best civil rights song ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhcTu5El0c
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Is this 20% charge based on? Value of load? Made up number? What?
Who gets it? Trump personally (very likely) or the US government (very unlikely).
Is this just a protection racket?
Can you decline to pay it? If so, what will the US Navy do?
If you do pay it, and the Iranians blow up your ship, will you get a refund?
Does the US Navy have the capacity to escort 200 ships per day through the Strait? (Okay, this is a leading question - the answer to this is fuck no, no it doesn't. Not if it pulled every ship in the US fleet to the Strait, it would still be insufficient - the US only has 233 combat ships, this isn't anywhere near fuck enough)
Will the US Navy do what it has steadfastly refused to do for the last three months and send 1.... just 1... ship into the Strait?
When inflation rises by 20% (plus the rest), do we get to blame Donald Trump?
Put like that, it's not the greatest of punishments.