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.
Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
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"
“ 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.
The police already seem to think they have found her murderer, which happened 24 hours prior.
Hopefully they have and he is swiftly charged and convicted.
To argue over what information they gave the media over such a short window is absurd. They've been busy trying to find the killer, not satisfy our curiosity. And comments they have made have been non committal.
People's selfish sense of having a right to have a live feed blow-by-blow of everything is ridiculous, not helped by social media.
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.
i thought it was after he was throwing a tantrum because someone pointed out he'd written a duff national curriculum.
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.
Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
It is perfectly normal. And it's fine. But it is done for public expectation management, and it is giving a running commentary, in a sense.
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?
Interesting you went with “Muslim” (I assume). I immediately jumped to “traitor”
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"
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.
To be fair to @Sandpit that’s all the MAGA talking points he cribs from includes
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"
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.
The police already seem to think they have found her murderer, which happened 24 hours prior.
Hopefully they have and he is swiftly charged and convicted.
To argue over what information they gave the media over such a short window is absurd. They've been busy trying to find the killer, not satisfy our curiosity. And comments they have made have been non committal.
People's selfish sense of having a right to have a live feed blow-by-blow of everything is ridiculous, not helped by social media.
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.
Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.
Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.
I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'
Anyone who types the sentence "The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society" with a straight face is a fucking conspiratorial moron who deserves to be ignored, not ridiculed.
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.
Well, that was his own fault for hiring Dominic Cummings in the first place.
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.
That's the police who have arrested hundreds for Palestine Action? Those police are in cahoots with leftist terrorists?
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)
Just on this narrow question, the US was briefly using helicopters to escort ships through the Strait. This makes sense because helicopters have been used by Ukraine in an anti-Shahed drone role, and would also be useful in dealing with small fast boats.
I think the US was using one helicopter to escort convoys of two or three ships.
The US has 1,300 Apache helicopters.
Edit: The US actually stopped the escorts BEFORE Iran attacked any ships in the recent period.
“ BREAKING: President Trump’s Thursday speech is reportedly to address “newly declassified intelligence reports related to foreign interference in the 2020 election,” per MS NOW.”
Comments
But so is the Trump administration.
The police already seem to think they have found her murderer, which happened 24 hours prior.
Hopefully they have and he is swiftly charged and convicted.
To argue over what information they gave the media over such a short window is absurd. They've been busy trying to find the killer, not satisfy our curiosity. And comments they have made have been non committal.
People's selfish sense of having a right to have a live feed blow-by-blow of everything is ridiculous, not helped by social media.
Are all Hindus far right racists?
We might get confused otherwise
NEW THREAD
"That's a nice VLCC you've got there. It would be a pity if something happened to it."
Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.
I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'
But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
https://youtu.be/tFwQQXGq53M?si=xqGVisnp-0QyxiBR
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/panorama-investigation-exposes-culture-of-racism-islamophobia-and-misogyny-in-the-met-police/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937w3zj742o
Idiot
I think the US was using one helicopter to escort convoys of two or three ships.
The US has 1,300 Apache helicopters.
Edit: The US actually stopped the escorts BEFORE Iran attacked any ships in the recent period.
“ BREAKING: President Trump’s Thursday speech is reportedly to address “newly declassified intelligence reports related to foreign interference in the 2020 election,” per MS NOW.”
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2076755890695221526?s=61