Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Britain should play the Trump card without folding or uppi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Britain should play the Trump card without folding or upping the ante
The vertiginous rise of the new champion of the alt-right in 2016 prompted a palpable blend of bafflement and consternation among the political elite right around the globe. Few dared even imagine that Donald Trump would triumph over his wily, experienced, and altogether far more internationally acceptable rival in the US presidential election. Indeed, most appeared caught almost completely off-guard and, a year on, none have yet managed to figure out quite how to tame the beast (if such a thing is possible).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/12/guardian-unveils-new-masthead-tabloid-launch-newspaper-online-apps
Why do you hate the Queen so much that you’d inflict Donald Trump on her?
I could never work in the creative industries!
(Maybe he’s known on here by another name)
We need to see the world as it is, and the relationship between the UK and USA will continue despite the current incumbents. The likes of Sadiq Khan and his virtue signalling aren’t helpful, the government (Boris and the PM) need to make this clear and offer the president a visit.
Birds of a feather and all that...
How much did they spend on the custom Berliner format presses?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42662297
Nixon kept recordings...
If she was a force for good she'd had refused to meet most of those.
#AbolishTheMonarchy
I’m always in awe of the route the PM takes from Heathrow or Northolt into town. Lots of traffic lights sequenced by the convoy, that travels on both sides of the road and are gone before you realised why you got stopped. Very efficient.
I think it's high risk to align UK goals with that. The question is can you ignore him or do you have to confront him
History points to the latter.
DPP and Parole Board execs need to justify to Parliament why they think it’s safe to release this guy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-42654058/coronation-memories-queen-s-advice-on-wearing-a-crown
I really wish we could hear what she really thinks and dispense with the toadies and protocols that place a barrier around her.
A lot of the complaints we know are going to be difficult to prosecute (his MO was Rohypnol and similar drugs) but at the time it was thought that the specimen charges would be enough to lock him away for life. To say that the CPS won’t even review the evidence - when requested by the victims - needs to be explained.
I saw a figure of 14 mentioned the other day.
Which brings us straight to Brexit - where we've made exactly that decision against the economic grain and decided other factors such as culture, integration and sovereignty were more important. Perhaps that might embolden the Government to be straight about the Trump administration? If only Boris was directing his fire across the pond not across the Thames.
After seeing T2 Harry changed his pin to 1872.
I know you’re a lawyer, and want to defend lawyers, but this strikes me as a huge miscarriage of justice for his victims.
A taxi driver (in a position of trust) convicted of 19 specimen charges of rape and sexual assault, and with a hundred more complaints on file, sentenced aged 51 to life imprisonment, would be surprised to be out a decade later. I’d suggest that his victims were expecting two decades in the big house as a minimum.
This is the closest we will get to in seeing this moron in this country!
The charging decision is based on other factors.
One of the articles said because of drunk/drugged up state of some the victims, I don’t think they’d get convictions.
(if you insist on doing a poundshop impression of SeanT don't be surprised if others do the same)
I am not a fan of the CPS. My experience of them has been that they are utterly woeful. But, you are confusing three issues, with great respect (as we lawyers like to say -
1. Was the sentence initially given long enough. Or rather the minimum term the judge said he should serve: 8 years. This was, I am told, in accordance with the rules then in place. To me, 8 years seems far too low. I think the sentence should have been challenged at the time but it is now too late.
2. Is it now safe to release him? This is the issue for the Parole Board and is the critical one. Unfortunately they cannot, by law, release details of why they have come to the decision they have. This ought to be changed. The other question is whether parole officers will really be able to keep an eye on him and whether sufficient conditions have been placed on him.
3. Should he be charged with additional offences? Two tests here: is there sufficient evidence which gives a better than evens chance of a conviction and is it in the public interest for him to be prosecuted. The latter is easy to answer. The former may be more difficult. It's not just the forensic or physical evidence; it's also the evidence from victims which will now be years old. Those factors make it a more finely judged decision than simply saying: justice for the victims etc. Remember: the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is rightly high. Just because the victims say they were attacked is not enough for a conviction. There may also be the question of whether he can now expect to receive a fair trial given all the publicity.
I would certainly have thought it made sense for the CPS to review the evidence again, with fresh eyes. But just because it may have been the wrong decision for the then DPP not to prosecute him on additional charges all those years does not necessarily make it the right decision now to charge him.
Nowt to do with the Queen being nice.
So, who are these indigenes?
And I’d quite like to see a republic too, if it’s all the same to you!
It is not in our interests to get involved in spats with Trump, however tempting it may be. Sometimes, as with the UN resolution on Jerusalem, we may feel we have no alternative to expressly and publically disagree with him but it is generally in our interests to keep these occasions to a minimum.
You would be surprised at how little of any of this is part of the public consciousness.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/12/graham-rix-gwyn-williams-accused-racism-bullying-chelsea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/951837852605800448
Head of Government is what matters. Head of State is an ornament
Tell me how we get rid of a duff Monarch?
I vote to take back control from our unelected rulers.
He also believes in homeopathy.
Alright, good start, you've already got my attention. And until it doesn't work well, there's no harm (previous instances which didn't work well were resolved, one way or another, hence the system being retained). When it doesn't work well, you can be damn sure there will be a quick reaction. It is technically possible for royal assent to be refused, apparently, but if it ever was you can be damn sure that possibility would be removed, as it has in some other places I believe. If the person in the role stepped out of line from what is expected and permitted, feeling would turn against the system quickly because we all know the role is an anachronism. Who would side with a royal trying to rule, not just reign, over elected officials?
That battle was won a long time ago. Republicans may well go all the way in the future, but anyone crying about the system in a very histrionic fashion is clearly just having some fun pitching for a reaction.
So if we don't like heredity, and we don't like overachieving political weasels, and the position doesn't require any talents that a motorised waxwork wouldn't have, surely selection by lot is the answer? I can't think of anything more democratic, fair and leveling, nor more likely to command popular support than each and every citizen being able to look at the monarch and think "That could have been me, I was a contender!"