Sounds like May screwed up. However, if you're going to screw up, do it at a by-election, learn from it, and be better for the General Election. Assuming she learns, of course.
Mrs C, those figures are yet more proof of the superiority of English civilisation
Mr. Patrick, quite. It's a nonsense to have a so-called crime determined by whether or not an individual decides they're sufficiently upset.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
I wonder if the country is slowly coming around to the notion that being old is not necessarily always the state's responsibility.
If it doesn't, the welfare state will not survive the geriatrification of the baby boomers.
Of course, there is a danger that the noisy will be heard loudest and first but in the end I think we need to have confidence in ourselves and in the belief that I have that the only way to challenge and defeat bad ideas is by good ideas and by saying them repeatedly in as many ways as possible and to as many audiences as possible.
I find it hard to get exercised about this idea in any case, people will always excel in the areas according to their talents. The fast will win races, the clever earn more, and the noisy be heard more often. Trying to make it otherwise is to enter the world of Harrison Bergeron
Not on topic but ...I used to be a regular listener to BBC Radio 5 live on my car radio. Basically because it promised News and Sport. Yet in the last year, it's gradually changed to Woman's Hour.
Most of the day, it's all about emoting, when it's not discussing the women's tiddlywinks team. The headlines are about how awful it must be for someone because ... eventually they'll get round to mentioning what's actually happened
The usual question to an interviewee is "How did it make you feel?" As they're generally talking to the victim of a crime, the answer is unlikely to be "Overjoyed." Stick to the known facts.
I know the BBC regards diversity as sacrosanct, but every time you mention the England football team, you don't have to spend equal time on the women's team too.
BTW, I've nothing against Women's Hour - but surely not every programme.
Gideon Skinner, head of political research at Ipsos MORI, said: “The historical contrasts look good for Theresa May, but much more alarming for Jeremy Corbyn.
“The Prime Minister is enjoying a better honeymoon at this stage then her two immediate predecessors, David Cameron and Gordon Brown.
“However, Mr Corbyn’s ratings as a Labour opposition leader almost 18 months in are closer to Michael Foot’s.”
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
The burden of proof is the wrong way round for libel in this country, and if someone wins an action then subsequently 'truth' becomes apparent (Private Eye vs the recent paedophile); the case should be quashed with costs, damages etc reversed.
How could the burden possibly be on the defendant to show that they didn't have a gay affair (for example)?
Is it currently the case that if someone wins a libel case against (say) a newspaper for disclosing some aspect of your private life you found infelicitous, and for which they had no proof, and then subsequently it is found that the newspaper was right in what they had said, that there is no redress for the newspaper ?
Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken might have something to say about that. Whether they had to repay any of the money, though, I'm not sure.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
I wonder if the country is slowly coming around to the notion that being old is not necessarily always the state's responsibility.
If it doesn't, the welfare state will not survive the geriatrification of the baby boomers.
The US no less has a decent old age pension system in which the rich contribute more and receive rather more. Their right admires the UK for having 'privatized' pensions, i.e. reduced the state old age pension to a bare safety net, one you can't live on without a further means-tested ~£2.5k/y of pension credit. That continues under the unfortunately named flat rate pension because many people don't have 35 y of NI.
What does the US system cost? About 12% of wages/salaries.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
I find it hard to get exercised about this idea in any case, people will always excel in the areas according to their talents. The fast will win races, the clever earn more, and the noisy be heard more often. Trying to make it otherwise is to enter the world of Harrison Bergeron
The burden of proof is the wrong way round for libel in this country, and if someone wins an action then subsequently 'truth' becomes apparent (Private Eye vs the recent paedophile); the case should be quashed with costs, damages etc reversed.
How could the burden possibly be on the defendant to show that they didn't have a gay affair (for example)?
Is it currently the case that if someone wins a libel case against (say) a newspaper for disclosing some aspect of your private life you found infelicitous, and for which they had no proof, and then subsequently it is found that the newspaper was right in what they had said, that there is no redress for the newspaper ?
Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken might have something to say about that. Whether they had to repay any of the money, though, I'm not sure.
I am sure people can end up in jail for perjury for having told whoppers at a libel trials, the point was more that if (for example), those whoppers had cause a substantial payout by the newspaper, and in the case of a local paper, potentially put it out of business, is there any redress possible by the proprietors and/or creditors ?
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
"The unhinged subjectivity of the hate-crime definition becomes even clearer on the issue of what is called ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’.
Again, this sanctification of perception over ‘what actually happens’ has trickled down into hate-crime policies of local constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. Truth, then, is ‘immaterial’.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
The burden of proof is the wrong way round for libel in this country, and if someone wins an action then subsequently 'truth' becomes apparent (Private Eye vs the recent paedophile); the case should be quashed with costs, damages etc reversed.
How could the burden possibly be on the defendant to show that they didn't have a gay affair (for example)?
Is it currently the case that if someone wins a libel case against (say) a newspaper for disclosing some aspect of your private life you found infelicitous, and for which they had no proof, and then subsequently it is found that the newspaper was right in what they had said, that there is no redress for the newspaper ?
Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken might have something to say about that. Whether they had to repay any of the money, though, I'm not sure.
Archer had to pay the damages back with interest and costs, I don't think Aitken was ever awarded damages, so there was nothing to pay back.
Edit: In fact he lost his original case, so no damages were ever awarded.
What we lack is self-confidence and eloquence and the willingness to engage in debate and the courage to do so.
Not everybody possesses self-confidence and eloquence. As a corollary, should car insurance be banned because I am a good driver and everyone else should be up to my standard?
The issue you identify is not going to be solved by imposing laws limiting what people can say. All that will do is scare off those who do have something to say but are worried about the possible consequences and will do nothing to stop the shameless.
The only way to allow a range of voices and opinions to be heard is by having as wide a public debate as possible, by making it clear that anyone can say what they want and not be afraid of a police visit, to encourage a multiplicity of sources, by limiting monopolies and concentration of ownership in the press, by challenging false stories and so on.
Of course, there is a danger that the noisy will be heard loudest and first but in the end I think we need to have confidence in ourselves and in the belief that I have that the only way to challenge and defeat bad ideas is by good ideas and by saying them repeatedly in as many ways as possible and to as many audiences as possible. The loudmouth Milos of this world can easily have their bubble pricked by sharp argument, not by banning them and allowing themselves to present themselves as "martyrs".
What we lack is self-confidence and eloquence and the willingness to engage in debate and the courage to do so. Self-important bullies just need their over-inflated bubbles pricking.
I don't agree either it's a question of "imposing laws". I'm challenging the assertion which seems to be gaining favour among a few posters (oddly enough those who post regularly and frequently) that within legal boundaries people should be able to say what they like.
I fail to hear them espousing the argument for the limitation of monopolies and the concentration of ownership because they support and agree with those who have the ownership and provide the editorial line for the mass market newspapers.
My suspicion is the volume of agreement is being used as a proxy for the shutting down of views they don't like or want to hear which are usually of "the left".
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Yes, we don't have free speech but it's the quantity of speech from a relatively few sources that's the real problem.
The voices of the many are drowned out by the repetitive postings and tweets of the few.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
They are idiots, but writing those 3 words is probably a hate crime according to our local police.
What would your suggested wording be?
I'd do away with the concept of "hate crime" in law. Either something should be a crime or it shouldn't.
Well that's certainly a consistent line to take. But what do you do about people like Abu Hamza?
I think it's obvious they shouldnt be allowed to call for violence... But that does contradict a right to free speech.
Punish them if they incite criminal acts. Leave them be if they simply express nasty views.
Seems sensible. But I do think it's difficult.
The people at Westboriugh Baptist Church who picket funerals and say soldiers and gay people deserve to die etc...
I can understand why people think that should be illegal.
I know a few states have banned protesting at funerals for fallen members of the armed services.
Not sure that Westboro Baptist Church is a particularly useful example; about 40 people in one group who have no links whatsoever to anybody else.
I think abolish "hate crime" for "crime", and perhaps abolish "aggravating factors" as well.
Aggravating/mitigating factors are useful in our criminal justice system.
As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
Actually thinking about it, I'd be more hurt if I was without my phone.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
Which would be a mistake.
The Labour Party may not be the most urgent of things for the Conservatives to worry about, but I agree they cannot be ignored or written off.
I have long been of the opinion that the best thing one can with an enemy which is down but not out is to kick them hard and repeatedly in the fork.
It seems the Church of England's bishops could teach the North Koreans a thing or two. The Bishop of Coventry accidentally votes the wrong way and so ruins their unanimity in favour of their flawed report and has to issue a humiliating apology.
The issue you identify is not going to be solved by imposing laws limiting what people can say. All that will do is scare off those who do have something to say but are worried about the possible consequences and will do nothing to stop the shameless.
The only way to allow a range of voices and opinions to be heard is by having as wide a public debate as possible, by making it clear that anyone can say what they want and not be afraid of a police visit, to encourage a multiplicity of sources, by limiting monopolies and concentration of ownership in the press, by challenging false stories and so on.
Of course, there is a danger that the noisy will be heard loudest and first but in the end I think we need to have confidence in ourselves and in the belief that I have that the only way to challenge and defeat bad ideas is by good ideas and by saying them repeatedly in as many ways as possible and to as many audiences as possible. The loudmouth Milos of this world can easily have their bubble pricked by sharp argument, not by banning them and allowing themselves to present themselves as "martyrs".
What we lack is self-confidence and eloquence and the willingness to engage in debate and the courage to do so. Self-important bullies just need their over-inflated bubbles pricking.
I don't agree either it's a question of "imposing laws". I'm challenging the assertion which seems to be gaining favour among a few posters (oddly enough those who post regularly and frequently) that within legal boundaries people should be able to say what they like.
I fail to hear them espousing the argument for the limitation of monopolies and the concentration of ownership because they support and agree with those who have the ownership and provide the editorial line for the mass market newspapers.
My suspicion is the volume of agreement is being used as a proxy for the shutting down of views they don't like or want to hear which are usually of "the left".
I think the Left is just as willing to put their views across as the right.
I'd like to agree but I'm not comfortable doing so.
The problem with your scenario is that it will be the loud, the angry and the sweary who will come to be the only voices heard. The problem with "Free" speech isn't the ability to speak but the ability to drive away by verbal intimidation those who don't feel comfortable in an adversarial verbal bear-pit but whose voices have a right to be heard.
It's a travesty of free speech in that by allowing some the freedom to say what they like (subject to incitement to violence and other laws relating to libel and slander) you keep others silent. It re-enforces the echo chambers and the silos if the only voices you ever hear are the ones you agree with or the ones that shout loudly enough.
Well said.
As soon as you move from an absolute right of free speech you move into the realms of who get to chose. The evidence isn't as we would hope, that it is Parliament, instead it is local bureaucrats, functionaries and busybodies.
The definition cited by a local police force below wasnt copied from any act of law, or set of regulations, it that that forces statement of how they would interpret the law. The problem is that functionaries and bureaucrats don't decide on these things in the public interest, they decide on them in the private interest, or more specifically, their own interest in terms of living a quiet life, and not getting a lot of hassle from vocal local pressure groups.
Correct.
They have also done some other very silly things, such as institutionalising a doctrine that women cannot commit misogynistic hate crime. That rather falls down when you notice that the harrassers of eg Criado Perez were ... a man and a woman.
"The force defines misogyny hate crime as: "Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.""
I'd like to agree but I'm not comfortable doing so.
The problem with your scenario is that it will be the loud, the angry and the sweary who will come to be the only voices heard. The problem with "Free" speech isn't the ability to speak but the ability to drive away by verbal intimidation those who don't feel comfortable in an adversarial verbal bear-pit but whose voices have a right to be heard.
It's a travesty of free speech in that by allowing some the freedom to say what they like (subject to incitement to violence and other laws relating to libel and slander) you keep others silent. It re-enforces the echo chambers and the silos if the only voices you ever hear are the ones you agree with or the ones that shout loudly enough.
Well said.
As soon as you move from an absolute right of free speech you move into the realms of who get to chose. The evidence isn't as we would hope, that it is Parliament, instead it is local bureaucrats, functionaries and busybodies.
The definition cited by a local police force below wasnt copied from any act of law, or set of regulations, it that that forces statement of how they would interpret the law. The problem is that functionaries and bureaucrats don't decide on these things in the public interest, they decide on them in the private interest, or more specifically, their own interest in terms of living a quiet life, and not getting a lot of hassle from vocal local pressure groups.
What we lack is self-confidence and eloquence and the willingness to engage in debate and the courage to do so.
Not everybody possesses self-confidence and eloquence. As a corollary, should car insurance be banned because I am a good driver and everyone else should be up to my standard?
No, but if you are a poor driver, and hence a higher risk, your insurance costs more. There are penalties for not being good at something. Sometimes its costs more money, sometimes its coming last in a race, sometimes its not being heard as often as the big mouth shouting at the front.
They are idiots, but writing those 3 words is probably a hate crime according to our local police.
What would your suggested wording be?
I'd do away with the concept of "hate crime" in law. Either something should be a crime or it shouldn't.
Well that's certainly a consistent line to take. But what do you do about people like Abu Hamza?
I think it's obvious they shouldnt be allowed to call for violence... But that does contradict a right to free speech.
Punish them if they incite criminal acts. Leave them be if they simply express nasty views.
Seems sensible. But I do think it's difficult.
The people at Westboriugh Baptist Church who picket funerals and say soldiers and gay people deserve to die etc...
I can understand why people think that should be illegal.
I know a few states have banned protesting at funerals for fallen members of the armed services.
Not sure that Westboro Baptist Church is a particularly useful example; about 40 people in one group who have no links whatsoever to anybody else.
I think abolish "hate crime" for "crime", and perhaps abolish "aggravating factors" as well.
Aggravating/mitigating factors are useful in our criminal justice system.
As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
Actually thinking about it, I'd be more hurt if I was without my phone.
>As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
So why have an aggravating factors in the one case and not the other?
As you say, a punch in the head is a punch in the head.
Hmm... I wonder about that. I think societies through the ages have certainly been comfortable with locking people up for saying things thought to be unacceptable.
Edit - for instance the UK we have banned books, political protests, political organisations etc...
Arguably we have more free speech now than before?
I think that's generally true, but to be precise what we are seeing less of is state-imposed censorship of books, films, dissident opinions, etc. What we are seeing more of is restrictions on the "right" to cause offence in public places - incite hatred of other groups etc. In general I think these things are best handled by the Public Order Act - there is a difference between shouting vile abuse at people exiting a mosque or synagogue and merely grumbling to your mates in a bar. But there is a case in our diverse society for limiting how extreme your comments can be in any public place (or tweet etc.).
That's where it gets difficult, in my opinion, and there isn't much doubt that some groups are more exposed to this sort of thing than others and therefore perhaps need greater protection. With violent xenophobic crime against foreigners apparently on the increase but violent crime against, say, Yorkshiremen apparently rare, there is a stronger case for restricting xenophobia (even where it dsoesn't explicitly urge violence) than Yorkshirephobia. Ultimately it comes back to the reasonable expectation that we have a society where the trading of public abuse which can encourage violence is not commonplace.
The Labour Party may not be the most urgent of things for the Conservatives to worry about, but I agree they cannot be ignored or written off.
I have long been of the opinion that the best thing one can with an enemy which is down but not out is to kick them hard and repeatedly in the fork.
Don't worry, the Conservatives will let Labour back into the game. As soon as the Conservatives believe they are invincible, they become very silly, gaffe prone and enormously unpopular. It's happened before and will happen again.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
I will bet you 35p that if I go Deep Google I will discover that the GDPR is either:
a) a UK initiative; b) being promoted by the UK; c) a replication of an existing UK law; or d) some other thing not related directly to the EU in the face of UK opposition.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Yes, we don't have free speech but it's the quantity of speech from a relatively few sources that's the real problem.
The voices of the many are drowned out by the repetitive postings and tweets of the few.
That may be the case - but is precisely no basis whatever for setting law. I must remain free to insult police horses. (which reminds me of the joke about what's the only animal that has a c*&t halfway up its back?)
The issue you identify is not going to be solved by imposing laws limiting what people can say. All that will do is scare off those who do have something to say but are worried about the possible consequences and will do nothing to stop the shameless.
The only way to allow a range of voices and opinions to be heard is by having as wide a public debate as possible, by making it clear that anyone can say what they want and not be afraid of a police visit, to encourage a multiplicity of sources, by limiting monopolies and concentration of ownership in the press, by challenging false stories and so on.
Of course, there is a danger that the noisy will be heard loudest and first but in the end I think we need to have confidence in ourselves and in the belief that I have that the only way to challenge and defeat bad ideas is by good ideas and by saying them repeatedly in as many ways as possible and to as many audiences as possible. The loudmouth Milos of this world can easily have their bubble pricked by sharp argument, not by banning them and allowing themselves to present themselves as "martyrs".
What we lack is self-confidence and eloquence and the willingness to engage in debate and the courage to do so. Self-important bullies just need their over-inflated bubbles pricking.
I don't agree either it's a question of "imposing laws". I'm challenging the assertion which seems to be gaining favour among a few posters (oddly enough those who post regularly and frequently) that within legal boundaries people should be able to say what they like.
I fail to hear them espousing the argument for the limitation of monopolies and the concentration of ownership because they support and agree with those who have the ownership and provide the editorial line for the mass market newspapers.
My suspicion is the volume of agreement is being used as a proxy for the shutting down of views they don't like or want to hear which are usually of "the left".
That may apply to others. It does not apply to me. I specifically referenced in my comment above "limiting monopolies and concentration of ownership in the press". I have also on other occasions wondered why there is so little effective left of centre/social democratic critique of our current political/economic arrangements and have also argued in favour of having a proper i.e. grown up (rather than an adolescent groupuscule) social democratic party.
Even if others favour "freedom of speech" for the wrong reasons, nonetheless, free speech is essential. It is the foundation stone of all our other freedoms. Freedom of speech is the freedom to think. A good idea is not made worse just because it is believed by rogues.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
>As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
So why have an aggravating factors in the one case and not the other?
As you say, a punch in the head is a punch in the head.
I meant in other aspects of the criminal justice system.
It is the reason why we generally don't send people to prison who steal to feed their starving kids.
But we generally send those to prison people who steal to fund lavish lifestyles.
My suspicion is the volume of agreement is being used as a proxy for the shutting down of views they don't like or want to hear which are usually of "the left".
It seems to work for the Americans as enshrined in the First Amendment.
People need to listen the liberal president Andrew Shepherd
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
What we lack is self-confidence and eloquence and the willingness to engage in debate and the courage to do so.
Not everybody possesses self-confidence and eloquence. As a corollary, should car insurance be banned because I am a good driver and everyone else should be up to my standard?
Eloquence and self-confidence are not the same as being noisy.
Our freedoms should not be set at the lowest possible bar. Otherwise everything would be arranged to suit babies.
I'd like to agree but I'm not comfortable doing so.
The problem with your scenario is that it will be the loud, the angry and the sweary who will come to be the only voices heard. The problem with "Free" speech isn't the ability to speak but the ability to drive away by verbal intimidation those who don't feel comfortable in an adversarial verbal bear-pit but whose voices have a right to be heard.
It's a travesty of free speech in that by allowing some the freedom to say what they like (subject to incitement to violence and other laws relating to libel and slander) you keep others silent. It re-enforces the echo chambers and the silos if the only voices you ever hear are the ones you agree with or the ones that shout loudly enough.
Well said.
As soon as you move from an absolute right of free speech you move into the realms of who get to chose. The evidence isn't as we would hope, that it is Parliament, instead it is local bureaucrats, functionaries and busybodies.
The definition cited by a local police force below wasnt copied from any act of law, or set of regulations, it that that forces statement of how they would interpret the law. The problem is that functionaries and bureaucrats don't decide on these things in the public interest, they decide on them in the private interest, or more specifically, their own interest in terms of living a quiet life, and not getting a lot of hassle from vocal local pressure groups.
...
IMO there are some pedigree wombats in the Nottinghamshire Constabulary somewhere.
I say, steady on! That is rather unfair on wombats who are admirable and, on the whole, harmless creatures.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
snip
What would your suggested wording be?
I'd do away with the concept of "hate crime" in law. Either something should be a crime or it shouldn't.
snip
Punish them if they incite criminal acts. Leave them be if they simply express nasty views.
Seems sensible. But I do think it's difficult.
The people at Westboriugh Baptist Church who picket funerals and say soldiers and gay people deserve to die etc...
I can understand why people think that should be illegal.
That's because we seem as a society to have lost the art of policing ourselves and our behavior through social taboos and pressure and concepts such as shame. That's how normal well ordered societies have always controlled themselves throughout the ages. There is something very wrong with a mindset which thinks that the only way to stop stuff happening is through the law, by making something a crime. It results in a very authoritarian society in the end.
Scott Adams made an interesting observation, and makes a common sense point in another posr that is often missed
"An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their opinions. " http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157277690511/how-to-persuade-the-other-party
"Who fired the shot that saved the African-American family? Was it a Republican or a Democrat?
One of the most underrated qualities of Republicans is that they police their own ranks. If you have a problem with a violent Republican racist, call some Republicans. They’ll solve it for you.
But don’t call a Republican if you are simply offended by another person’s opinion. In that situation you want to call some Democrats to ridicule and physically attack the person with the objectionable opinion."
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
I will bet you 35p that if I go Deep Google I will discover that the GDPR is either:
a) a UK initiative; b) being promoted by the UK; c) a replication of an existing UK law; or d) some other thing not related directly to the EU in the face of UK opposition.
ie I bet the UK championed it.
You may very well be right. Rather than footling about over 35p if we ever meet at a PB drinks do I will buy you a drink.
I cannot be bothered to research it because anything to do with Data Protection gives me an instant migraine. It is an area of the law where common sense - either in the law or in its practitioners - is completely unknown.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
Mr. Eagles, sounds like the sort of situation that requires a bar chart
The 'vote for Labour or go to Hell' line could have serious ramifications. Even if there are none electorally in the forthcoming contest, if it gains popular currency it really won't go down well.
A good idea is not made worse just because it is believed by rogues.
The opposite of that is almost a touchstone belief of certain segments of the left. The number of times we see attempts at guilt by association, that a party must be bad because some of its supporters have unsavory views (Various rightwing nutters / VLTC & UKIP), that some things must be untrue because the people that have said them are unpleasant people (Nick Griffin/Rotherham) etc.
Mr. Eagles, sounds like the sort of situation that requires a bar chart
The 'vote for Labour or go to Hell' line could have serious ramifications. Even if there are none electorally in the forthcoming contest, if it gains popular currency it really won't go down well.
I remember Ian Paisley used a similar campaign line in Northern Ireland, I think it was part of the save Ulster from sodomy campaign.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Or, infinitely better, 'Lib Dems reporting potential breaches of law to the police' - please try and be rational rather than juvenal. (And I am not a Lib Dem supporter).
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Next Friday I'll be in an area with no mobile phone signal, and a quick google tells me the nearest bookies is 20 miles away.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
I will bet you 35p that if I go Deep Google I will discover that the GDPR is either:
a) a UK initiative; b) being promoted by the UK; c) a replication of an existing UK law; or d) some other thing not related directly to the EU in the face of UK opposition.
ie I bet the UK championed it.
You may very well be right. Rather than footling about over 35p if we ever meet at a PB drinks do I will buy you a drink.
I cannot be bothered to research it because anything to do with Data Protection gives me an instant migraine. It is an area of the law where common sense - either in the law or in its practitioners - is completely unknown.
Ha! Indeed.
And in a quiet moment I may amuse myself to look it up and yes, a drink either way at a PB do makes a lot more sense.
Or, infinitely better, 'Lib Dems reporting potential breaches of law to the police' - please try and be rational rather than juvenal. (And I am not a Lib Dem supporter).
Juvenal?
It's nice to see your predictive text has a classical education!
I know there were burnings during the 16th century when religion went to and fro, and a tiny number of witch burnings centuries earlier, but apart from that I'm not sure it was commonplace here at all. Could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
Witch burnings were a fraction of the number compared to burnings for heresy. Most of the figures I have seen said that over 400 years or so across Europe there were a minimum of 12,000 and more likely 50,000. That would be 30 to 125 per year across Europe - less than one person per town per year.
Mary Tudor had 274 people burned. In England witches were generally hanged, but the last person burned in the UK was in 1727
The Sixteenth Century is an interesting example of how societies can become simultaneously more civilised, and less civilised.
Henry VIII didn't think that punishments like burning and hanging, drawing and quartering were severe enough. He introduced boiling to death, as a method of capital punishment. From time to time, the victim would be hauled out on a chain, to display to the crowds, before being dropped back into boiling water.
I would LOVE to be a judge! I am tempted to put in a wild card application - I have had a long and varied career in many aspects of the law, am the daughter of immigrants and would take no nonsense from the pompous or the crooked.
I mean, what's not to like -
You would make an awesome judge imho.
As an aside, my aunty used to be a magistrate in Wakefield. On my 18th birthday she rang me to say that it was no more juvenile court for me and would be the full adults version.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Next Friday I'll be in an area with no mobile phone signal, and a quick google tells me the nearest bookies is 20 miles away.
I wouldn't worry, plod doesn't work that fast wrt elections. Lutfur Rahman is the template anyway - that took a couple of months iirc.
We'll take 1/28th of that giant egg boondoggle in Brussels. Preferably in cash.
LOL, one twenty-eighth? Let's pro rate it based on net contributions to the budget. More like 40%. Should pay for anything the EU can come up with in terms of obligations. Perhaps they'll end up having to pay us to leave
Talking of leftwing media, watching the BBC or reading (generally brilliant) leftwing broadsheet newspapers, you'd barely know there was a tiny bit of rioting in France right now.
I think the problem with the BBC is not so much their editorial policy, so much as the news function on their website, which used to be excellent, has been deliberately and severely downgraded over the last two or three years (partly owing to pressure from the Murdochs etc and partly cost cutting).
Their news stories now are little more than expanded headlines.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
'Surrender or you'll die' sounds like an out and out threat of violence to me. If 30,000 boozed up hun were outside chanting 'catholics are so gay and poncey' then that'd be just fine. Police should quietly move them along.
Not sure whether anyone knows or cares, but just found out Malcolm MacLaren was basically raping and pillaging South African music in the 80s and passing it off as his own. Remember "Double Dutch"?
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Next Friday I'll be in an area with no mobile phone signal, and a quick google tells me the nearest bookies is 20 miles away.
I wouldn't worry, plod doesn't work that fast wrt elections. Lutfur Rahman is the template anyway - that took a couple of months iirc.
Double bubble if the result is overturned. We get another round of bets. Will Nigel decide to stand in new by-election?
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Next Friday I'll be in an area with no mobile phone signal, and a quick google tells me the nearest bookies is 20 miles away.
I wouldn't worry, plod doesn't work that fast wrt elections. Lutfur Rahman is the template anyway - that took a couple of months iirc.
Double bubble if the result is overturned. We get another round of bets. Will Nigel decide to stand in new by-election?
If the election is overturned, just back the previous winner. People REALLY don't like being asked the same question twice.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Next Friday I'll be in an area with no mobile phone signal, and a quick google tells me the nearest bookies is 20 miles away.
I wouldn't worry, plod doesn't work that fast wrt elections. Lutfur Rahman is the template anyway - that took a couple of months iirc.
Double bubble if the result is overturned. We get another round of bets. Will Nigel decide to stand in new by-election?
Depends on what happens in Thanet South and the investigations therein.
Its been a little damp today, when they talk about the "rainy season" in the tropics, they are not kidding! Almost 9cm of rain fell today with around the same forecast for tomorrow, bringing the total in the last month up to a good bit over half a metre of rain.
Its been a little damp today, when they talk about the "rainy season" in the tropics, they are not kidding! Almost 9cm of rain fell today with around the same forecast for tomorrow, bringing the total in the last month up to a bit over half a metre of rain.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
'Surrender or you'll die' sounds like an out and out threat of violence to me. If 30,000 boozed up hun were outside chanting 'catholics are so gay and poncey' then that'd be just fine. Police should quietly move them along.
If there's to be a slippery slope of interpretation, I'd far prefer it to be around 'what is incitement to violence?" than "did it upset little Timmy, whether or not it was a crime?"
BTW what makes the latter so outrageous and presumably unconstitutional and against international human rights law is that there is no possible defence against the charge. I cannot prove that I did not upset someone. "That offended me and caused emotional harm" is not refutable with evidence.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Thank goodness what happens in an Old Firm match stays in an Old Firm match.
If anyone has been leaking classified material in the US.. Well, their Maxo prisons don't look like a holiday camp from what I've seen. Hope they enjoy their stay
Not sure whether anyone knows or cares, but just found out Malcolm MacLaren was basically raping and pillaging South African music in the 80s and passing it off as his own. Remember "Double Dutch"?
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Thank goodness what happens at an Old Firm match stays in an Old Firm match.
I think I agree with the views that May / Tories risk becoming complacent. They are vulnerable on NHS / Social Care. Hammond strikes me as being savvy though. I expect he'll find a few bob unexpectedly down the back of the sofa to bolster health.
It is of course at the moment of most certainty that people are most vulnerable to what would by, by definition, an unexpected change.
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
I will bet you 35p that if I go Deep Google I will discover that the GDPR is either:
a) a UK initiative; b) being promoted by the UK; c) a replication of an existing UK law; or d) some other thing not related directly to the EU in the face of UK opposition.
ie I bet the UK championed it.
You may very well be right. Rather than footling about over 35p if we ever meet at a PB drinks do I will buy you a drink.
I cannot be bothered to research it because anything to do with Data Protection gives me an instant migraine. It is an area of the law where common sense - either in the law or in its practitioners - is completely unknown.
Ha! Indeed.
And in a quiet moment I may amuse myself to look it up and yes, a drink either way at a PB do makes a lot more sense.
If anyone has been leaking classified material in the US.. Well, their Maxo prisons don't look like a holiday camp from what I've seen. Hope they enjoy their stay
Well George W Bush gave pardons to those who leaked intel that outed CIA agents.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Thank goodness what happens at an Old Firm match stays in an Old Firm match.
Except unfortunately it doesn't. The police find very large spikes in domestic violence after an old firm game. Presumably, these days, the protestant women of the west coast have a legitimate cause for complaint about being unfairly picked on.
Its been a little damp today, when they talk about the "rainy season" in the tropics, they are not kidding! Almost 9cm of rain fell today with around the same forecast for tomorrow, bringing the total in the last month up to a good bit over half a metre of rain.
When Floyd came through Virginia, some spots got 24" in a day. 3" per hour is not uncommon in tropical storms.
Not sure whether anyone knows or cares, but just found out Malcolm MacLaren was basically raping and pillaging South African music in the 80s and passing it off as his own. Remember "Double Dutch"?
No!! Paul Simon was not ripping off SA musics. He went to SA and spent months working with local musicians, learning their unique style of playing and taking part in rehearsals and local concerts. A team of musicians then bought together the different songs on Graceland; many of whom went on tour with him afterwards and gained access to world audience. Some of the songs had joint writing credits with local musicians.
Its been a little damp today, when they talk about the "rainy season" in the tropics, they are not kidding! Almost 9cm of rain fell today with around the same forecast for tomorrow, bringing the total in the last month up to a bit over half a metre of rain.
You've never been to Manchester have you?
Yes. However the annual average rainfall in Manchester is 80cm, we have nearly had that in the last month! Annual total for us is about 3m.
Cardiff is the wettest place in the UK with 114cm, all this nice wet air from the Gulf of Mexico arriving and then cooling.
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
Quite right. As I stated last night, it is potentially a breach of the law - see the Tower Hamlets/Lutfur Rahman judgment. The integrity of the electoral process matters.
Electoral laws are important.Ironically it could be the reasons both Labour and UKIP victories in Stoke could be overturned.
If you have a paper bet with a bookie there, get down the shop as soon as possible would be my advice. My only paper bet is Tories-Copeland, where the rules look to have been followed at least.
Next Friday I'll be in an area with no mobile phone signal, and a quick google tells me the nearest bookies is 20 miles away.
I wouldn't worry, plod doesn't work that fast wrt elections. Lutfur Rahman is the template anyway - that took a couple of months iirc.
Double bubble if the result is overturned. We get another round of bets. Will Nigel decide to stand in new by-election?
Depends on what happens in Thanet South and the investigations therein.
Blimey forgot about that: are we likely to see some conclusion soon?
Its been a little damp today, when they talk about the "rainy season" in the tropics, they are not kidding! Almost 9cm of rain fell today with around the same forecast for tomorrow, bringing the total in the last month up to a bit over half a metre of rain.
You've never been to Manchester have you?
Very sensible decision not to go to Manchester. Last time my friend was there he managed to overturn a lorry and got the firm in the MEN. Who would have thought that if you use a hiab, you need the legs out on both sides?
Comments
Mrs C, those figures are yet more proof of the superiority of English civilisation
Mr. Patrick, quite. It's a nonsense to have a so-called crime determined by whether or not an individual decides they're sufficiently upset.
If it doesn't, the welfare state will not survive the geriatrification of the baby boomers.
Most of the day, it's all about emoting, when it's not discussing the women's tiddlywinks team. The headlines are about how awful it must be for someone because ... eventually they'll get round to mentioning what's actually happened
The usual question to an interviewee is "How did it make you feel?" As they're generally talking to the victim of a crime, the answer is unlikely to be "Overjoyed." Stick to the known facts.
I know the BBC regards diversity as sacrosanct, but every time you mention the England football team, you don't have to spend equal time on the women's team too.
BTW, I've nothing against Women's Hour - but surely not every programme.
And yes, I've reset to another channel.
“The Prime Minister is enjoying a better honeymoon at this stage then her two immediate predecessors, David Cameron and Gordon Brown.
“However, Mr Corbyn’s ratings as a Labour opposition leader almost 18 months in are closer to Michael Foot’s.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-left-standing-as-theresa-may-is-handed-poll-boost-a3468351.html
We have nibbled around the subject of Jezza going, and apparently (I am far from close to the machinations of the Labour Party), there is a growing groundswell of opinion amongst MPs that he should go, but in general the Cons can be forgiven for ruling the Labour Party out of things they should be worried about.
Which would be a mistake.
What does the US system cost? About 12% of wages/salaries.
Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Maybe "subsidiarity" will be the solution?
"The unhinged subjectivity of the hate-crime definition becomes even clearer on the issue of what is called ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’.
Again, this sanctification of perception over ‘what actually happens’ has trickled down into hate-crime policies of local constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. Truth, then, is ‘immaterial’.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/truth-behind-brexit-hate-crime-spike/
I think abolish "hate crime" for "crime", and perhaps abolish "aggravating factors" as well.
Edit: In fact he lost his original case, so no damages were ever awarded.
I fail to hear them espousing the argument for the limitation of monopolies and the concentration of ownership because they support and agree with those who have the ownership and provide the editorial line for the mass market newspapers.
My suspicion is the volume of agreement is being used as a proxy for the shutting down of views they don't like or want to hear which are usually of "the left".
The voices of the many are drowned out by the repetitive postings and tweets of the few.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 2 mins2 minutes ago
Vote Snell or go to Hell - LibDems have gone to the coppers over THIS:
As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
Actually thinking about it, I'd be more hurt if I was without my phone.
I have long been of the opinion that the best thing one can with an enemy which is down but not out is to kick them hard and repeatedly in the fork.
They have also done some other very silly things, such as institutionalising a doctrine that women cannot commit misogynistic hate crime. That rather falls down when you notice that the harrassers of eg Criado Perez were ... a man and a woman.
"The force defines misogyny hate crime as: "Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398
IMO there are some pedigree wombats in the Nottinghamshire Constabulary somewhere.
Been there, seen that.
I know, 'twas ever thus.
>As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
So why have an aggravating factors in the one case and not the other?
As you say, a punch in the head is a punch in the head.
That's where it gets difficult, in my opinion, and there isn't much doubt that some groups are more exposed to this sort of thing than others and therefore perhaps need greater protection. With violent xenophobic crime against foreigners apparently on the increase but violent crime against, say, Yorkshiremen apparently rare, there is a stronger case for restricting xenophobia (even where it dsoesn't explicitly urge violence) than Yorkshirephobia. Ultimately it comes back to the reasonable expectation that we have a society where the trading of public abuse which can encourage violence is not commonplace.
It will be a joy to behold next time.
a) a UK initiative;
b) being promoted by the UK;
c) a replication of an existing UK law; or
d) some other thing not related directly to the EU in the face of UK opposition.
ie I bet the UK championed it.
(which reminds me of the joke about what's the only animal that has a c*&t halfway up its back?)
Even if others favour "freedom of speech" for the wrong reasons, nonetheless, free speech is essential. It is the foundation stone of all our other freedoms. Freedom of speech is the freedom to think. A good idea is not made worse just because it is believed by rogues.
I guess it depends on what we do to the various Rights' tabulations.
It is the reason why we generally don't send people to prison who steal to feed their starving kids.
But we generally send those to prison people who steal to fund lavish lifestyles.
People need to listen the liberal president Andrew Shepherd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2jhQ0KAAU
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
I'm surprised she hasn't resigned......
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-16/stoke-on-trent-text-messages-warn-vote-labour-or-go-to-hell/
Our freedoms should not be set at the lowest possible bar. Otherwise everything would be arranged to suit babies.
The Tory lead is only 6% when all voters are taken into account with Ipsos Mori
Con 37% (-5)
Lab 31% (-2)
Lib Dems 13% (+3)
UKIP 8% (+2)
Changes since last month in brackets
"An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their opinions. " http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157277690511/how-to-persuade-the-other-party
"Who fired the shot that saved the African-American family? Was it a Republican or a Democrat?
One of the most underrated qualities of Republicans is that they police their own ranks. If you have a problem with a violent Republican racist, call some Republicans. They’ll solve it for you.
But don’t call a Republican if you are simply offended by another person’s opinion. In that situation you want to call some Democrats to ridicule and physically attack the person with the objectionable opinion."
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156850873521/a-thought-experiment-about-republicans
I cannot be bothered to research it because anything to do with Data Protection gives me an instant migraine. It is an area of the law where common sense - either in the law or in its practitioners - is completely unknown.
The 'vote for Labour or go to Hell' line could have serious ramifications. Even if there are none electorally in the forthcoming contest, if it gains popular currency it really won't go down well.
And in a quiet moment I may amuse myself to look it up and yes, a drink either way at a PB do makes a lot more sense.
It's nice to see your predictive text has a classical education!
Donald J Trump
The spotlight has finally been put on the low-life leakers! They will be caught!
Corbyn should try it with his rebels.
As an aside, my aunty used to be a magistrate in Wakefield.
On my 18th birthday she rang me to say that it was no more juvenile court for me and would be the full adults version.
Ouch. And probably worse even still than the graph shows, given how many Tories must be very satisfied with his performance.
BTW what makes the latter so outrageous and presumably unconstitutional and against international human rights law is that there is no possible defence against the charge. I cannot prove that I did not upset someone. "That offended me and caused emotional harm" is not refutable with evidence.
Well, their Maxo prisons don't look like a holiday camp from what I've seen. Hope they enjoy their stay
This one took much longer to come to light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight#Copyright_issues
'No more Catholics left'
See: https://iapp.org/resources/article/a-brief-history-of-the-general-data-protection-regulation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38992303
Good for the Silver Arrows. Bad for the Prancing Horse.
Cardiff is the wettest place in the UK with 114cm, all this nice wet air from the Gulf of Mexico arriving and then cooling.
Larry Elder and Dave Rubin: Real Racism, Trump, Fake News, and More (Full Interview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrfV-y_VC8
I am sure she eats with a knife and fork.
So she's posh in Stoke,,,:-)
Yes I do live in a Stoke postcode..
Last time my friend was there he managed to overturn a lorry and got the firm in the MEN.
Who would have thought that if you use a hiab, you need the legs out on both sides?
Con: -17
May: =
Lab: -19
Corbyn: -35