Mr. Meeks, a video on Youtube has to be sought out to be seen. If somebody's putting up a tribute to a career criminal outside your house, it's rather harder to ignore.
Also, not a great comparison as the chap you refer to was arrested, prosecuted and has been convicted (awaiting sentence) of a crime for telling a joke some found offensive.
There's also, as others have mentioned, the Lee Rigby tribute comparison. A serial criminal is being afforded protection that was not forthcoming for a victim of terrorism who served in the armed forces.
Are you playing Devil's advocate?
The serial criminal is being afforded 'protection' (ffs!) immediately after he died. Lee Rigby died five years ago, and it is reasonable to ask how long such prominent displays should be allowed.
If they continue to put such prominent displays up in a few weeks' or months' time, then I'd argue they should be removed. But even thieving scum are people, and people who knew them should be allowed to grieve for them just as much as they would for angels.
As I recall, the Rigby family requested that the shrine be removed as it had become a Mecca (!) for far right hate groups.
Meanwhile, this is what the Republicans in Congress (or at least some of them) have come to...
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/a-congressman-s-profanity-laced-tirade-in-a-safeway-grocery-store-SeHI2l5bIECGQn4gmnzGaw/?full=1 "I say a lot of shit on TV defending him, even over this. But honestly, I wish the motherf*cker would just go away. We're going to lose the House, lose the Senate, and lose a bunch of states because of him. All his supporters will blame us for what we have or have not done, but he hasn't led. He wakes up in the morning, sh*ts all over Twitter, sh*ts all over us, sh*ts all over his staff, then hits golf balls. F*ck him. Of course, I can't say that in public or I'd get run out of town.”…
This bit was interesting… If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker…
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
What utter rubbish.
Nobody is stopping this man’s family and friends from grieving. Precisely what human right allows them to do so by leaving flowers on a property which does not belong to them, and in such a way as to intimidate his victim?
It’s called freedom of expression. Last week it was being invoked in favour of Nazi-saluting dogs.
Do I regard this as appropriate? No. But that shouldn’t be my judgement call. Taste or offence should not be the determining consideration.
Eh? I missed that one!
On your substantive point taste or offence may not be, but don't you (as a lawyer) think public order may have a role to play?
It seems to have given the police an excellent reason to post a 24 hour watch outside the pensioner’s house indefinitely. It may well be aiding not hindering public order.
Reportedly he is yet to return to his home... one might guess why.
One can only imagine the distress that is causing his wife with dementia.
Later reports suggest she actually has arthritis, not dementia.
Not that it will not still be distressing and inconvenient for them - as Mrs BJO's experiences showed, somebody with mobility issues forced to move suddenly and unexpectedly without proper preparation can end up facing real problems.
Meanwhile, this is what the Republicans in Congress (or at least some of them) have come to...
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/a-congressman-s-profanity-laced-tirade-in-a-safeway-grocery-store-SeHI2l5bIECGQn4gmnzGaw/?full=1 "I say a lot of shit on TV defending him, even over this. But honestly, I wish the motherf*cker would just go away. We're going to lose the House, lose the Senate, and lose a bunch of states because of him. All his supporters will blame us for what we have or have not done, but he hasn't led. He wakes up in the morning, sh*ts all over Twitter, sh*ts all over us, sh*ts all over his staff, then hits golf balls. F*ck him. Of course, I can't say that in public or I'd get run out of town.”…
This bit was interesting… If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker…
My wallet will be happy if they really do lose the Senate...
Mr. Meeks, a video on Youtube has to be sought out to be seen. If somebody's putting up a tribute to a career criminal outside your house, it's rather harder to ignore.
Also, not a great comparison as the chap you refer to was arrested, prosecuted and has been convicted (awaiting sentence) of a crime for telling a joke some found offensive.
There's also, as others have mentioned, the Lee Rigby tribute comparison. A serial criminal is being afforded protection that was not forthcoming for a victim of terrorism who served in the armed forces.
Are you playing Devil's advocate?
The serial criminal is being afforded 'protection' (ffs!) immediately after he died. Lee Rigby died five years ago, and it is reasonable to ask how long such prominent displays should be allowed.
If they continue to put such prominent displays up in a few weeks' or months' time, then I'd argue they should be removed. But even thieving scum are people, and people who knew them should be allowed to grieve for them just as much as they would for angels.
What stops them from grieving at their own home rather than the septuagenarian victims home they were already trying to burgle?
Meanwhile, this is what the Republicans in Congress (or at least some of them) have come to...
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/a-congressman-s-profanity-laced-tirade-in-a-safeway-grocery-store-SeHI2l5bIECGQn4gmnzGaw/?full=1 "I say a lot of shit on TV defending him, even over this. But honestly, I wish the motherf*cker would just go away. We're going to lose the House, lose the Senate, and lose a bunch of states because of him. All his supporters will blame us for what we have or have not done, but he hasn't led. He wakes up in the morning, sh*ts all over Twitter, sh*ts all over us, sh*ts all over his staff, then hits golf balls. F*ck him. Of course, I can't say that in public or I'd get run out of town.”…
This bit was interesting… If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker…
My wallet will be happy if they really do lose the Senate...
In any event it provides a nice context for Ryan's political obituary:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/paul-ryan-personifies-the-devils-bargain-the-gop-struck-with-trump/557783/ Ryan more than any other Republican paved the path for this subjugation to Trump—if only because he provided the most viable rallying point for an alternative, optimistic, inclusive vision and yet chose to submit. He leaves the party lashed to a volatile, impulsive leader who is systematically stamping it as a vehicle for white racial resentment, even as the nation grows kaleidoscopically more diverse….
The Senate is probably a tossup at this point. Polls are moving their way, but the Democrats face a very high electoral hurdle indeed in this November's Senate races.
Mr. Meeks, a video on Youtube has to be sought out to be seen. If somebody's putting up a tribute to a career criminal outside your house, it's rather harder to ignore.
Also, not a great comparison as the chap you refer to was arrested, prosecuted and has been convicted (awaiting sentence) of a crime for telling a joke some found offensive.
There's also, as others have mentioned, the Lee Rigby tribute comparison. A serial criminal is being afforded protection that was not forthcoming for a victim of terrorism who served in the armed forces.
Are you playing Devil's advocate?
The serial criminal is being afforded 'protection' (ffs!) immediately after he died. Lee Rigby died five years ago, and it is reasonable to ask how long such prominent displays should be allowed.
If they continue to put such prominent displays up in a few weeks' or months' time, then I'd argue they should be removed. But even thieving scum are people, and people who knew them should be allowed to grieve for them just as much as they would for angels.
What stops them from grieving at their own home rather than the septuagenarian victims home they were already trying to burgle?
That's obvious. To have a shrine at his own home won't intimidate the local community which is what they're trying to achieve.
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
The alternative point of view is that these people are not grieving. They are a criminal clan, sending a message to the pensioner and his wife with dementia that "we know where you live...."
That alternative point of view presupposes that these people, who have just lost someone close to them, are inhumans with no feelings or who are to be allowed no feelings. So it can safely be discounted as something unfit for any decent person to contemplate.
I doubt the pensioner and his wife will feel safe anyway. That is a separate problem. Interflora is not the most effective means of intimidation. If something less floral is going on, obviously that needs to be dealt with.
Given that members of Mr. Vincent's family have variously described the pensioner as "scum" and demanded that he apologise to them, it would be entirely reasonable to contemplate it.
In any case, the owner of the land to which these tributes are being attached has stated that he does not want them there.
Mr. Meeks, a video on Youtube has to be sought out to be seen. If somebody's putting up a tribute to a career criminal outside your house, it's rather harder to ignore.
Also, not a great comparison as the chap you refer to was arrested, prosecuted and has been convicted (awaiting sentence) of a crime for telling a joke some found offensive.
There's also, as others have mentioned, the Lee Rigby tribute comparison. A serial criminal is being afforded protection that was not forthcoming for a victim of terrorism who served in the armed forces.
Are you playing Devil's advocate?
The serial criminal is being afforded 'protection' (ffs!) immediately after he died. Lee Rigby died five years ago, and it is reasonable to ask how long such prominent displays should be allowed.
If they continue to put such prominent displays up in a few weeks' or months' time, then I'd argue they should be removed. But even thieving scum are people, and people who knew them should be allowed to grieve for them just as much as they would for angels.
What stops them from grieving at their own home rather than the septuagenarian victims home they were already trying to burgle?
Yes, I'd prefer it to be elsewhere. But if we allow some people to place memorials at the place their loved one died - or even places they liked (e.g. flowers on park benches) - then we should allow everyone to do so if they wish. We should not ban it just because we did not like the person who died, except in extremis.
That's why, as I said below, it's up to everyone to be adult about it. The council, police and the family need to get together and sort out another nearby location that will be less fraught. If the family do not agree, that should be made clear. Also put a time limit on 'ostentatious' displays - after all many graveyards have hefty restrictions on displays.
Mr. Jessop, I agree. A tribute/memorial at the thief's home, or his grave, would be entirely appropriate. By the home of the man he was attempting to burgle is intimidating law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Meeks, a video on Youtube has to be sought out to be seen. If somebody's putting up a tribute to a career criminal outside your house, it's rather harder to ignore.
Also, not a great comparison as the chap you refer to was arrested, prosecuted and has been convicted (awaiting sentence) of a crime for telling a joke some found offensive.
There's also, as others have mentioned, the Lee Rigby tribute comparison. A serial criminal is being afforded protection that was not forthcoming for a victim of terrorism who served in the armed forces.
Are you playing Devil's advocate?
The serial criminal is being afforded 'protection' (ffs!) immediately after he died. Lee Rigby died five years ago, and it is reasonable to ask how long such prominent displays should be allowed.
If they continue to put such prominent displays up in a few weeks' or months' time, then I'd argue they should be removed. But even thieving scum are people, and people who knew them should be allowed to grieve for them just as much as they would for angels.
What stops them from grieving at their own home rather than the septuagenarian victims home they were already trying to burgle?
Yes, I'd prefer it to be elsewhere. But if we allow some people to place memorials at the place their loved one died - or even places they liked (e.g. flowers on park benches) - then we should allow everyone to do so if they wish. We should not ban it just because we did not like the person who died, except in extremis.
That's why, as I said below, it's up to everyone to be adult about it. The council, police and the family need to get together and sort out another nearby location that will be less fraught. If the family do not agree, that should be made clear. Also put a time limit on 'ostentatious' displays - after all many graveyards have hefty restrictions on displays.
But they should be allowed to grieve.
Its not that they shouldn't be allowed because we don't like them, it shouldn't be allowed because its private property they have no right to be at. Private property the serial criminal only died in because he had a habit of stealing from septuagenarians.
Nobody is stopping his family from grieving. They have no right to impose their grief on their VICTIMS home.
If someone broke into a home to rape someone and died while attempting to rape her, would the rapists family be entitled to erect a shrine on the rape victims home? I see no difference between that and a burglary victim.
Its not their property, but then if they respected that they wouldn't have gone in to it in the first place.
If Mrs May becomes Trump's poodle I would hope the protests will match those of the Iraq demonstrations. There are plenty of similarities but In many ways this would be worse. Blair at least got the approval of parliament (albeit by lying) whereas it seems Mrs May isn't going to bother.
Oh for goodness sake all Trump is going to do is lob a few missiles at Assad after he massacred 70 civilians, we may not even do anything ourselves, it will be more Bill Clinton than the thousands of ground troops deployed by George W Bush and Blair in Iraq
I was once working in Beirut and leaving the Marriot Hotel there was a commotion nearby and we were all ushered back into the hotel foyer. About an hour later we were allowed to leave and that was that. Apparently the Israelis had hit a power station nearby killing five electricity workers. I'm very fond of the Lebanese a most unbelligerent people and wondered why five electricity workers should be dismissed as collateral damage because of where they happened to be working.
Why should peoplle going about their lawful work be killed to teach someone else a lesson?
Mr. Jessop, I agree. A tribute/memorial at the thief's home, or his grave, would be entirely appropriate. By the home of the man he was attempting to burgle is intimidating law-abiding citizens.
Just as long as you apply such restrictions to others - and allow anyone who wants to claim intimidation. Besides, AFAIAA he has not been buried yet, so it is hard to place memorials at his grave, and it is natural to want to play memorials at the place someone died.
As I said below, it's up to everyone to agree an alternative location. If they cannot come to an agreement, then ban it if there is genuine intimidation going on (and that is up to the immediate residents to say, not us).
But coming back to your odd remarks about the Rigby memorials: there should really be a time limit on the large displays. A bunch of flowers placed on the deceased's birthday: fair enough. Year-round flags, wreaths, notes pinned to walls etc is going too far and can even be a nuisance.
If Mrs May becomes Trump's poodle I would hope the protests will match those of the Iraq demonstrations. There are plenty of similarities but In many ways this would be worse. Blair at least got the approval of parliament (albeit by lying) whereas it seems Mrs May isn't going to bother.
Oh for goodness sake all Trump is going to do is lob a few missiles at Assad after he massacred 70 civilians, we may not even do anything ourselves, it will be more Bill Clinton than the thousands of ground troops deployed by George W Bush and Blair in Iraq
I was once working in Beirut and leaving the Marriot Hotel there was a commotion nearby and we were all ushered back into the hotel foyer. About an hour later we were allowed to leave and that was that. Apparently the Israelis had hit a power station nearby killing five electricity workers. I'm very fond of the Lebanese a most unbelligerent people and wondered why five electricity workers should be dismissed as collateral damage because of where they happened to be working.
Why should peoplle going about their lawful work be killed to teach someone else a lesson?
Civilians ate not going to be targeted Assad's military installations will be but if you are happy for dozens of civilians to continue to be massacred by Assad each time he launches a chemical weapons attack then so be it
If someone broke into a home to rape someone and died while attempting to rape her, would the rapists family be entitled to erect a shrine on the rape victims home? I see no difference between that and a burglary victim.
Its not their property, but then if they respected that they wouldn't have gone in to it in the first place.
It's like the way people put up murals to dead terrorists in Northern Ireland. No doubt they had family who loved them, but it's also giving the middle finger to their victims.
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
The alternative point of view is that these people are not grieving. They are a criminal clan, sending a message to the pensioner and his wife with dementia that "we know where you live...."
By creating the memorial opposite the pensioner's house, not where the burglar died....
Being serious for a second, and reading Meeks/Jessops sensible points - the tribute should NOT be outside the property, it ought to be a couple of streets away where the burglar actually died. The tribute being opposite house is sending a very unpleasent message - it is not the correct place for it.
What a daft proposal. Councils already have diddly squat cash and most bus services are heavily outsourced. Arriva-First-Stagecoach won't give back the profitable routes, and it'll cost the councils even more to run 20 yr olds about for free. A proposal for universal free U-25 bus provision would make more sense but would be horrendously expensive. Best to scrap free buses for all and give something back to hard pressed 26-64 yr olds.
Mr. Jessop, I agree. A tribute/memorial at the thief's home, or his grave, would be entirely appropriate. By the home of the man he was attempting to burgle is intimidating law-abiding citizens.
Just as long as you apply such restrictions to others - and allow anyone who wants to claim intimidation. Besides, AFAIAA he has not been buried yet, so it is hard to place memorials at his grave, and it is natural to want to play memorials at the place someone died.
As I said below, it's up to everyone to agree an alternative location. If they cannot come to an agreement, then ban it if there is genuine intimidation going on (and that is up to the immediate residents to say, not us).
But coming back to your odd remarks about the Rigby memorials: there should really be a time limit on the large displays. A bunch of flowers placed on the deceased's birthday: fair enough. Year-round flags, wreaths, notes pinned to walls etc is going too far and can even be a nuisance.
It's littering and can be cleared away as such. Where there are sensitivities involved, some care should be taken in clearing but in the burglar case, I'd have no problem with the authorities removing flowers and other abandoned property immediately, or protecting those members of the public who public-mindedly litter-pick.
Mr. Meeks, a video on Youtube has to be sought out to be seen. If somebody's putting up a tribute to a career criminal outside your house, it's rather harder to ignore.
Also, not a great comparison as the chap you refer to was arrested, prosecuted and has been convicted (awaiting sentence) of a crime for telling a joke some found offensive.
There's also, as others have mentioned, the Lee Rigby tribute comparison. A serial criminal is being afforded protection that was not forthcoming for a victim of terrorism who served in the armed forces.
Are you playing Devil's advocate?
The decision in relation to the flowers for Lee Rigby was in my view a bad one. That, rather than this, was the mistake.
Agreed Alastair. That was a terrible misjudgement.
I think @JonasJessop's solution is the best. A nearby spot where memorials can be left and respected.
But the local community has allegedly suffered more than 30 burglaries of late and is obviously highly agitated about their possible source. Their agitation and anger is understandable. I have been rather more disappointed by the number of posters using racist epithets on this site. It has not been PB's finest hour.
I cannot understand how the PM can call a Parliamentary debate without revealing the Allies plans and prejeudicing the action
I would assume to be honest that she has learnt from Cameron's experience and will not call a vote in parliament.
It she makes a reasoned call and the action is proportionate I would expect her to receive support
Can't see how she can rely on it after last time. I think there were 20, maybe 30 Tories who voted with Miliband iirc.
30 including 4 who are now Ministers. David Davis was one of them. Not clear how many Labour MPs might support an action though.
BBC reported 50 labour mps or more would support the action
Yeh, right. Until the Deselection Unit gets into action with threats from the mob.
Meh, the Tories will be under a 3 line whip to support too. I think strikes would pass parliament, personally I'd vote against if it was a free choice but I wouldn't rebel whichever way I was told to vote.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
The alternative point of view is that these people are not grieving. They are a criminal clan, sending a message to the pensioner and his wife with dementia that "we know where you live...."
By creating the memorial opposite the pensioner's house, not where the burglar died....
Being serious for a second, and reading Meeks/Jessops sensible points - the tribute should NOT be outside the property, it ought to be a couple of streets away where the burglar actually died. The tribute being opposite house is sending a very unpleasent message - it is not the correct place for it.
Or where he lived, or where he was born, or where he committed his first arrestable offence. There is no hard and fast rule about where these things are placed; scholars of mawkishness will recall the Diana tributes in the Mall.
The instinct to respect the recently dead and those grieving them is strong, but these people are doing a fair job of turning this into a point-and-laugh opportunity.
I assume we can expect a full-on cockney funeral with plumed horses and stuff, onaccount of what a diamond geezer he was.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Even better: encourage greater road use but cut the maintenance budget. That won’t have any negative consequences.
The SNP were guilty of the same idiocy with one of the bridges over the Forth.
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
What utter rubbish.
Nobody is stopping this man’s family and friends from grieving. Precisely what human right allows them to do so by leaving flowers on a property which does not belong to them, and in such a way as to intimidate his victim?
It’s called freedom of expression. Last week it was being invoked in favour of Nazi-saluting dogs.
Do I regard this as appropriate? No. But that shouldn’t be my judgement call. Taste or offence should not be the determining consideration.
Eh? I missed that one!
On your substantive point taste or offence may not be, but don't you (as a lawyer) think public order may have a role to play?
It seems to have given the police an excellent reason to post a 24 hour watch outside the pensioner’s house indefinitely. It may well be aiding not hindering public order.
Though given the amount of support the pensioner has from the public, the tabloids and his neighbours if they tried anything against him and his wife a viligante mob would get to them even before the police
Which in itself is a seriously worrying thought.
If the police fail to do their job, people will take matters into their own hands. This was amply demonstrated in the 2011 riots in London, where the communities that banded together to protect themselves suffered less damage than those that didn't.
I can't remember if during the recent Catalonian shenanigans you were critical of the politicisation of the Guardia Civil (& subsequently the Mossos), or the peaceful resistance of groups of Catalan voters to protect their right to vote. Let's hope so for the sake of consistency.
I cannot understand how the PM can call a Parliamentary debate without revealing the Allies plans and prejeudicing the action
I would assume to be honest that she has learnt from Cameron's experience and will not call a vote in parliament.
It she makes a reasoned call and the action is proportionate I would expect her to receive support
Can't see how she can rely on it after last time. I think there were 20, maybe 30 Tories who voted with Miliband iirc.
30 including 4 who are now Ministers. David Davis was one of them. Not clear how many Labour MPs might support an action though.
BBC reported 50 labour mps or more would support the action
Yeh, right. Until the Deselection Unit gets into action with threats from the mob.
Meh, the Tories will be under a 3 line whip to support too. I think strikes would pass parliament, personally I'd vote against if it was a free choice but I wouldn't rebel whichever way I was told to vote.
I would probably vote for them but I would do so recognising that those killed by the action are very unlikely to have much or any responsibility. @Roger's example is a telling one. Taking out Assad's palaces would be a much better response in my view. It is the decision makers they should be going after. I would also want to know what we were signing up for. I would be reluctant to give Trump unqualified support for as far as he can go.
That is indeed a good article. I think there’s support for giving a message to Assad about his use of chemical weapons, hopefully there’s enough backchannels in place that the Russians can clear away from the facilities likely to be targeted. No-one wants WWIII, but the international community can’t do nothing over a clear breach of the chemical weapons treaty.
Bombing both sides in the same civil war is a macabre twist even by the febrile standards of contemporary politics.
Assad didn't give a fuck when the USN dropped 50 TLAMs on Al-Shayrat a year ago. Why is it going to work this time?
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
What utter rubbish.
Nobody is stopping this man’s family and friends from grieving. Precisely what human right allows them to do so by leaving flowers on a property which does not belong to them, and in such a way as to intimidate his victim?
It’s called freedom of expression. Last week it was being invoked in favour of Nazi-saluting dogs.
Do I regard this as appropriate? No. But that shouldn’t be my judgement call. Taste or offence should not be the determining consideration.
Eh? I missed that one!
On your substantive point taste or offence may not be, but don't you (as a lawyer) think public order may have a role to play?
It seems to have given the police an excellent reason to post a 24 hour watch outside the pensioner’s house indefinitely. It may well be aiding not hindering public order.
Though given the amount of support the pensioner has from the public, the tabloids and his neighbours if they tried anything against him and his wife a viligante mob would get to them even before the police
Which in itself is a seriously worrying thought.
If the police fail to do their job, people will take matters into their own hands. This was amply demonstrated in the 2011 riots in London, where the communities that banded together to protect themselves suffered less damage than those that didn't.
I can't remember if during the recent Catalonian shenanigans you were critical of the politicisation of the Guardia Civil (& subsequently the Mossos), or the peaceful resistance of groups of Catalan voters to protect their right to vote. Let's hope so for the sake of consistency.
Upholding the constitution of a state is not politicisation. It is a basic function of the police and, if required, armed forces.
If you read my post, I didn’t say people should take the law into their own hands. I merely said they would.
That is indeed a good article. I think there’s support for giving a message to Assad about his use of chemical weapons, hopefully there’s enough backchannels in place that the Russians can clear away from the facilities likely to be targeted. No-one wants WWIII, but the international community can’t do nothing over a clear breach of the chemical weapons treaty.
Bombing both sides in the same civil war is a macabre twist even by the febrile standards of contemporary politics.
Assad didn't give a fuck when the USN dropped 50 TLAMs on Al-Shayrat a year ago. Why is it going to work this time?
That attack cost the US more than $100m. To do what? $100k of damage to a run down airfield? Its a weird way to punish someone.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
How could it not be popular in rural areas? Those young 'uns in the countryside will get to travel free - on their one bus a week......
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Welcome to the world of corbynonomics....
You say that now but in two years' time free buses will be at the heart of Theresa May's conference speech ("my speech in [insert town here]"). Ask Ed Miliband.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
The subsidy for pensioners is all that keeps rural bus services going because those who are supposedly to pay for this largesse are largely at work during the day and not on the buses.
One day, maybe, politicians might come to realise that their function is not to find ever more groups who can get "free" stuff, that such an approach is irresponsible and has consequences. But I am not holding my breath.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
The subsidy for pensioners is all that keeps rural bus services going because those who are supposedly to pay for this largesse are largely at work during the day and not on the buses.
One day, maybe, politicians might come to realise that their function is not to find ever more groups who can get "free" stuff, that such an approach is irresponsible and has consequences. But I am not holding my breath.
I imagine free buses have a measurable effect of extending the time during which the elderly can live at home rather than in care homes, while also disincentivising them from driving their own cars. Both substantial social benefits, surely.
That is indeed a good article. I think there’s support for giving a message to Assad about his use of chemical weapons, hopefully there’s enough backchannels in place that the Russians can clear away from the facilities likely to be targeted. No-one wants WWIII, but the international community can’t do nothing over a clear breach of the chemical weapons treaty.
Bombing both sides in the same civil war is a macabre twist even by the febrile standards of contemporary politics.
Assad didn't give a fuck when the USN dropped 50 TLAMs on Al-Shayrat a year ago. Why is it going to work this time?
It is gesture bombing, missiles as a way of "sending a message".
When getting involved in such an intractable war, we should at least have some clear outcome in mind. Perhaps we ought to consider what a successful resolution of the Syrian situation looks like, and work backwards from there to determine the steps required.
The Cold War was full of proxy wars, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Nicaragua, but we at least kept those to involving only one of the USA and Russia/USSR. Syria already has both of these fielding combat aircraft and ground troops. Anything that increases the risk of direct conflict between these would be the hottest point in a Cold War.
We need to consider if Syria justifies such a risk. I think not.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
The subsidy for pensioners is all that keeps rural bus services going because those who are supposedly to pay for this largesse are largely at work during the day and not on the buses.
One day, maybe, politicians might come to realise that their function is not to find ever more groups who can get "free" stuff, that such an approach is irresponsible and has consequences. But I am not holding my breath.
The Conservative government has been just as guilty when it comes to childcare, and yet provides no equivalent support to stay-at-home parents. Nobody speaks for them.
Upholding the constitution of a state is not politicisation. It is a basic function of the police and, if required, armed forces.
If you read my post, I didn’t say people should take the law into their own hands. I merely said they would.
Of course, as any fule kno, the firm smack of police truncheons on grannies' skulls is a necessary part of upholding any constitution.
You don't think 'communities that banded together to protect themselves suffered less damage than those that didn't' isn't a teeny weeny bit supportive?
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
The subsidy for pensioners is all that keeps rural bus services going because those who are supposedly to pay for this largesse are largely at work during the day and not on the buses.
One day, maybe, politicians might come to realise that their function is not to find ever more groups who can get "free" stuff, that such an approach is irresponsible and has consequences. But I am not holding my breath.
I suspect we've maxed out on our ability to steal the wealth of the future to spend today.
Which would mean that we'll soon be restricted to only consuming the wealth we can create.
The consequent howling and shrieking will be deafening.
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
The alternative point of view is that these people are not grieving. They are a criminal clan, sending a message to the pensioner and his wife with dementia that "we know where you live...."
By creating the memorial opposite the pensioner's house, not where the burglar died....
Being serious for a second, and reading Meeks/Jessops sensible points - the tribute should NOT be outside the property, it ought to be a couple of streets away where the burglar actually died. The tribute being opposite house is sending a very unpleasent message - it is not the correct place for it.
Indeed, and in the context of threats to the pensioner, and messages of 'we know where you live' downright menacing. The Police/LA should have a chat with the family and say 'here is fine, opposite the crime scene not'.
I think May is in danger of overreaching - people rather like her steadiness in recent weeks, but that doesn't necessarily extend to reinserting us into Middle East conflicts.
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
What utter rubbish.
Nobody is stopping this man’s family and friends from grieving. Precisely what human right allows them to do so by leaving flowers on a property which does not belong to them, and in such a way as to intimidate his victim?
It’s called freedom of expression. Last week it was being invoked in favour of Nazi-saluting dogs.
Do I regard this as appropriate? No. But that shouldn’t be my judgement call. Taste or offence should not be the determining consideration.
Eh? I missed that one!
On your substantive point taste or offence may not be, but don't you (as a lawyer) think public order may have a role to play?
It seems to have given the police an excellent reason to post a 24 hour watch outside the pensioner’s house indefinitely. It may well be aiding not hindering public order.
The police haven't done much wrong apart from the crassly worded statement IMHO.
It is gesture bombing, missiles as a way of "sending a message".
It's Brexit level magical thinking to assume there is a 'Goldilocks' level of air strikes that will dissuade further chemical weapons use but won't collapse the regime.
So the only people who would pay for buses are those who use them least? Great model to disincentivise innovation, investment and expansion of the service.
Its also a policy highly biased towards urban areas.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
One day, maybe, politicians might come to realise that their function is not to find ever more groups who can get "free" stuff, that such an approach is irresponsible and has consequences. But I am not holding my breath.
I see Labours bus bribe only applies to nationalised buses. Surely that breaks some state aid rule ?
I can see Team Twat just claiming things which break state aid rules are classic examples of the ruling world elite trying to maintain their vested interests and stop the state helping the people. Then when eventually some court rules this as state aid, they will claim see, it is the global elite again.
I see Labours bus bribe only applies to nationalised buses. Surely that breaks some state aid rule ?
Well all things being equal Labour's first opportunity to implement such a policy will be when we have the left the EU, so the state aid rules won't apply*
*Unless they are grandfathered in to our exit deal.
It is gesture bombing, missiles as a way of "sending a message".
It's Brexit level magical thinking to assume there is a 'Goldilocks' level of air strikes that will dissuade further chemical weapons use but won't collapse the regime.
Have financial sanctions against Syria and Russia been exhausted ?
Could Assad be put on trial at the Hague in absentia ?
I do think there's an argument for a response, though. Obama's red line meaning nothing has led to more chemical weapons attacks, and we do not want that to become normal behaviour in dictatorships and war-torn regions of the world. Unfortunately, any action taken will be seen, to a lesser or greater extent, through the prism of recent military actions. Blair's intelligence failure doesn't help matters either.
I think May is in danger of overreaching - people rather like her steadiness in recent weeks, but that doesn't necessarily extend to reinserting us into Middle East conflicts.
But you gov does caveat the polling by saying that opinions can change rapidly depending on the consequences.
Sky just saying that labour are not putting anyone up for interview but they managed to roll out Vince to give his view
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
What utter rubbish.
Nobody is stopping this man’s family and friends from grieving. Precisely what human right allows them to do so by leaving flowers on a property which does not belong to them, and in such a way as to intimidate his victim?
It’s called freedom of expression. Last week it was being invoked in favour of Nazi-saluting dogs.
Do I regard this as appropriate? No. But that shouldn’t be my judgement call. Taste or offence should not be the determining consideration.
Eh? I missed that one!
On your substantive point taste or offence may not be, but don't you (as a lawyer) think public order may have a role to play?
It seems to have given the police an excellent reason to post a 24 hour watch outside the pensioner’s house indefinitely. It may well be aiding not hindering public order.
The police haven't done much wrong apart from the crassly worded statement IMHO.
I see Labours bus bribe only applies to nationalised buses. Surely that breaks some state aid rule ?
Well all things being equal Labour's first opportunity to implement such a policy will be when we have the left the EU, so the state aid rules won't apply*
*Unless they are grandfathered in to our exit deal.
So another kick in the nuts for Labour supporters who think Jezza is a Remainer..
This morning is a good morning to remember that human rights are something needed for the unpopular, not the popular. No doubt the dead burglar was a toerag. But he is dead and there are people grieving his death. They should be allowed the freedom to express that grief in ways that do not otherwise break the law.
You don’t have to like it. That’s not the point.
What utter rubbish.
Nobody is stopping this man’s family and friends from grieving. Precisely what human right allows them to do so by leaving flowers on a property which does not belong to them, and in such a way as to intimidate his victim?
It’s called freedom of expression. Last week it was being invoked in favour of Nazi-saluting dogs.
Do I regard this as appropriate? No. But that shouldn’t be my judgement call. Taste or offence should not be the determining consideration.
Eh? I missed that one!
On your substantive point taste or offence may not be, but don't you (as a lawyer) think public order may have a role to play?
It seems to have given the police an excellent reason to post a 24 hour watch outside the pensioner’s house indefinitely. It may well be aiding not hindering public order.
The police haven't done much wrong apart from the crassly worded statement IMHO.
On this rare occasion, we agree completely.
Post Brexit, the world including PB will be one big happy chai latte of friendship and harmony.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there was talk some years ago that international trials were creating as many problems as they solve. Assad looked very shaky about 5 years ago. He might've fled with a shitload of cash if he could've felt confident of staying in (wealthy) exile without risk of prosecution.
But if the alternatives are imprisonment forever or trying to win and retain power, without that third option, more will try to retain power than duck out [when exile was an option].
Of course, that exile option would've entailed effectively letting a war criminal get away unpunished and living in safety and prosperity. It's far from ideal. But it may have been a way for a better resolution to occur.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
It's hard to tweet and be on a call at the same time.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
It's hard to tweet and be on a call at the same time.
One of Scotland Yard's top officers today insisted that 'laying flowers is not a crime' as the 'battle of the bouquets' outside the home of a pensioner forced to kill a burglar entered a fourth day.
Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey has been criticised for calling the death of career criminal Henry Vincent a 'tragedy' for his family and telling those tearing the flowers down to 'act respectfully'.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
It's hard to tweet and be on a call at the same time.
Silly response to a serious matter
More serious than some, Williamson was looking at hedgehogs yesterday. Meanwhile May is actually contemplating action without a Commons vote.
One of Scotland Yard's top officers today insisted that 'laying flowers is not a crime' as the 'battle of the bouquets' outside the home of a pensioner forced to kill a burglar entered a fourth day.
Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey has been criticised for calling the death of career criminal Henry Vincent a 'tragedy' for his family and telling those tearing the flowers down to 'act respectfully'.
One of Scotland Yard's top officers today insisted that 'laying flowers is not a crime' as the 'battle of the bouquets' outside the home of a pensioner forced to kill a burglar entered a fourth day.
Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey has been criticised for calling the death of career criminal Henry Vincent a 'tragedy' for his family and telling those tearing the flowers down to 'act respectfully'.
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
Vice (or Vox...can't remember which) had an interview with a data firm that works for the democrats doing targeted adverts etc, and they said they have profiles for 200+ million people in the US.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
Good to hear. Taking out a couple of airfields and weapons factories doesn’t need to start WWIII if everyone’s sensible about it.
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
One thing that seemed to being missed in all of this is not only your public data is being used, and there has been some talk of shadow profiles (which Facebook have bought data on you, even if you don't use Facebook), but also that every single thing you put on Facebook is used to feed their ML sausage machines i.e. every photo gets put through the sausage machine and in the US all photos are auto-tagged with the people / objects in the photos*.
So yes you can delete that photo, but it has already been used. I wonder if people are happy that their innocent photo of them and their kids is being used in this way (especially the auto-tagging, which is used to build inter-person networks and relationships etc).
* I went to a talk last year, where they are now doing video with automatic object recognition, semantic segmentation and structure.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
Good to hear. Taking out a couple of airfields and weapons factories doesn’t need to start WWIII if everyone’s sensible about it.
A miltary plan only lasts as long as the first shot.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
Good to hear. Taking out a couple of airfields and weapons factories doesn’t need to start WWIII if everyone’s sensible about it.
Very welcome. Does allow Assad to get his mobile assets out of any theatre though.
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
Vice (or Vox...can't remember which) had an interview with a data firm that works for the democrats doing targeted adverts etc, and they said they have profiles for 200+ million people in the US.
Well of course they do, as does every political campaign in every developed country. It appears to have come as a huge surprise to the US Democrats, who clearly thought they were the only ones doing it!
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
Good to hear. Taking out a couple of airfields and weapons factories doesn’t need to start WWIII if everyone’s sensible about it.
Very welcome. Does allow Assad to get his mobile assets out of any theatre though.
Already happened - and three Syrian airbuses flew to Iran yesterday & haven't come back:
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
Vice (or Vox...can't remember which) had an interview with a data firm that works for the democrats doing targeted adverts etc, and they said they have profiles for 200+ million people in the US.
Well of course they do, as does every political campaign in every developed country. It appears to have come as a huge surprise to the US Democrats, who clearly thought they were the only ones doing it!
It was quite funny as the interviewer asked for his profile and it said he was African American...but the guy was white....but lots of the other stuff was basically correct.
That is indeed a good article. I think there’s support for giving a message to Assad about his use of chemical weapons, hopefully there’s enough backchannels in place that the Russians can clear away from the facilities likely to be targeted. No-one wants WWIII, but the international community can’t do nothing over a clear breach of the chemical weapons treaty.
Bombing both sides in the same civil war is a macabre twist even by the febrile standards of contemporary politics.
Assad didn't give a fuck when the USN dropped 50 TLAMs on Al-Shayrat a year ago. Why is it going to work this time?
The previous action did stop chemical weapons being used during the year following.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
One thing that seemed to being missed in all of this is not only your public data is being used, and there has been some talk of shadow profiles (which Facebook have bought data on you, even if you don't use Facebook), but also that every single thing you put on Facebook is used to feed their ML sausage machines i.e. every photo gets put through the sausage machine and in the US all photos are auto-tagged with the people / objects in the photos*.
So yes you can delete that photo, but it has already been used. I wonder if people are happy that their innocent photo of them and their kids is being used in this way (especially the auto-tagging, which is used to build inter-person networks and relationships etc).
* I went to a talk last year, where they are now doing video as well, object recognition, semantic segmentation and structure.
Your data is ther product, and like any business they strive hard to make the best product for their customers. The problem with Facebook is that users are finally waking up to the fact that they are not the customer but the product, hence their stock being off 14% in the last two months, that’s about $70bn of value they’ve lost - and a lot of users.
D. Spyn, hope he can make a full recovery. Damned shame he isn't in the Cabinet, although if he attributes working hours to the stroke then perhaps that would've made things worse.
Ha ha. Yes, the whole “scandal” about Facebook data is only because Trump used it to win. When it was Obama winning, everyone thought it was wonderful!
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
One thing that seemed to being missed in all of this is not only your public data is being used, and there has been some talk of shadow profiles (which Facebook have bought data on you, even if you don't use Facebook), but also that every single thing you put on Facebook is used to feed their ML sausage machines i.e. every photo gets put through the sausage machine and in the US all photos are auto-tagged with the people / objects in the photos*.
So yes you can delete that photo, but it has already been used. I wonder if people are happy that their innocent photo of them and their kids is being used in this way (especially the auto-tagging, which is used to build inter-person networks and relationships etc).
* I went to a talk last year, where they are now doing video as well, object recognition, semantic segmentation and structure.
Your data is ther product, and like any business they strive hard to make the best product for their customers. The problem with Facebook is that users are finally waking up to the fact that they are not the customer but the product, hence their stock being off 14% in the last two months, that’s about $70bn of value they’ve lost - and a lot of users.
Well I know that, you know that, but all the CA stuff is still clouding the issue, which is Facebook takes your data and uses in ways you never imagined.
Well I know that, you know that, but all the CA stuff is still clouding the issue, which is Facebook takes your data and uses in ways you never imagined.
The stuff about them making inferences from your usage, and then passing it over to credit reference agencies is a bit errm worrying. If I never buy anything off a Facebook ad will I be blacklisted ?
Well I know that, you know that, but all the CA stuff is still clouding the issue, which is Facebook takes your data and uses in ways you never imagined.
The stuff about them making inferences from your usage, and then passing it over to credit reference agencies is a bit errm worrying. If I never buy anything off a Facebook ad will I be blacklisted ?
The report that really opened my eyes was from a few years ago that stated they are the biggest buyer of personal data in the world, and that they have so much info on individuals that it is well within their capability to take a lot of standard anonymized data and work out with a fairly high probability who it actually refers to.
Well I know that, you know that, but all the CA stuff is still clouding the issue, which is Facebook takes your data and uses in ways you never imagined.
The stuff about them making inferences from your usage, and then passing it over to credit reference agencies is a bit errm worrying. If I never buy anything off a Facebook ad will I be blacklisted ?
Or worse, not having a Facebook account at all.
The Equifax data leak scandal did not get half the publicity it should have got IMO, your data is their product and their business model is buying and selling that data. The main difference between Equifax and Facebook is that we have no relationship at all with Equifax, which should be an aggravating factor in the data leak.
Comments
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/a-congressman-s-profanity-laced-tirade-in-a-safeway-grocery-store-SeHI2l5bIECGQn4gmnzGaw/?full=1
"I say a lot of shit on TV defending him, even over this. But honestly, I wish the motherf*cker would just go away. We're going to lose the House, lose the Senate, and lose a bunch of states because of him. All his supporters will blame us for what we have or have not done, but he hasn't led. He wakes up in the morning, sh*ts all over Twitter, sh*ts all over us, sh*ts all over his staff, then hits golf balls. F*ck him. Of course, I can't say that in public or I'd get run out of town.”…
This bit was interesting…
If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker…
Not that it will not still be distressing and inconvenient for them - as Mrs BJO's experiences showed, somebody with mobility issues forced to move suddenly and unexpectedly without proper preparation can end up facing real problems.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/paul-ryan-personifies-the-devils-bargain-the-gop-struck-with-trump/557783/
Ryan more than any other Republican paved the path for this subjugation to Trump—if only because he provided the most viable rallying point for an alternative, optimistic, inclusive vision and yet chose to submit. He leaves the party lashed to a volatile, impulsive leader who is systematically stamping it as a vehicle for white racial resentment, even as the nation grows kaleidoscopically more diverse….
The Senate is probably a tossup at this point. Polls are moving their way, but the Democrats face a very high electoral hurdle indeed in this November's Senate races.
To have a shrine at his own home won't intimidate the local community which is what they're trying to achieve.
In any case, the owner of the land to which these tributes are being attached has stated that he does not want them there.
That's why, as I said below, it's up to everyone to be adult about it. The council, police and the family need to get together and sort out another nearby location that will be less fraught. If the family do not agree, that should be made clear. Also put a time limit on 'ostentatious' displays - after all many graveyards have hefty restrictions on displays.
But they should be allowed to grieve.
Nobody is stopping his family from grieving. They have no right to impose their grief on their VICTIMS home.
Its not their property, but then if they respected that they wouldn't have gone in to it in the first place.
Why should peoplle going about their lawful work be killed to teach someone else a lesson?
As I said below, it's up to everyone to agree an alternative location. If they cannot come to an agreement, then ban it if there is genuine intimidation going on (and that is up to the immediate residents to say, not us).
But coming back to your odd remarks about the Rigby memorials: there should really be a time limit on the large displays. A bunch of flowers placed on the deceased's birthday: fair enough. Year-round flags, wreaths, notes pinned to walls etc is going too far and can even be a nuisance.
Not clear how many Labour MPs might support an action though.
https://twitter.com/johnprescott/status/984300170845319173
The tribute being opposite house is sending a very unpleasent message - it is not the correct place for it.
A proposal for universal free U-25 bus provision would make more sense but would be horrendously expensive.
Best to scrap free buses for all and give something back to hard pressed 26-64 yr olds.
I think @JonasJessop's solution is the best. A nearby spot where memorials can be left and respected.
But the local community has allegedly suffered more than 30 burglaries of late and is obviously highly agitated about their possible source. Their agitation and anger is understandable. I have been rather more disappointed by the number of posters using racist epithets on this site. It has not been PB's finest hour.
I think strikes would pass parliament, personally I'd vote against if it was a free choice but I wouldn't rebel whichever way I was told to vote.
The instinct to respect the recently dead and those grieving them is strong, but these people are doing a fair job of turning this into a point-and-laugh opportunity.
I assume we can expect a full-on cockney funeral with plumed horses and stuff, onaccount of what a diamond geezer he was.
The SNP were guilty of the same idiocy with one of the bridges over the Forth.
Assad didn't give a fuck when the USN dropped 50 TLAMs on Al-Shayrat a year ago. Why is it going to work this time?
If you read my post, I didn’t say people should take the law into their own hands. I merely said they would.
Or will Corbyn Labour be offering equal bus access to the whole country - not to do so would be admit bigotry.
One day, maybe, politicians might come to realise that their function is not to find ever more groups who can get "free" stuff, that such an approach is irresponsible and has consequences. But I am not holding my breath.
When getting involved in such an intractable war, we should at least have some clear outcome in mind. Perhaps we ought to consider what a successful resolution of the Syrian situation looks like, and work backwards from there to determine the steps required.
The Cold War was full of proxy wars, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Nicaragua, but we at least kept those to involving only one of the USA and Russia/USSR. Syria already has both of these fielding combat aircraft and ground troops. Anything that increases the risk of direct conflict between these would be the hottest point in a Cold War.
We need to consider if Syria justifies such a risk. I think not.
You don't think 'communities that banded together to protect themselves suffered less damage than those that didn't' isn't a teeny weeny bit supportive?
Which would mean that we'll soon be restricted to only consuming the wealth we can create.
The consequent howling and shrieking will be deafening.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-prepares-britain-to-launch-assault-on-assad-p637f9vbc
I think May is in danger of overreaching - people rather like her steadiness in recent weeks, but that doesn't necessarily extend to reinserting us into Middle East conflicts.
*Unless they are grandfathered in to our exit deal.
Could Assad be put on trial at the Hague in absentia ?
I do think there's an argument for a response, though. Obama's red line meaning nothing has led to more chemical weapons attacks, and we do not want that to become normal behaviour in dictatorships and war-torn regions of the world. Unfortunately, any action taken will be seen, to a lesser or greater extent, through the prism of recent military actions. Blair's intelligence failure doesn't help matters either.
Sky just saying that labour are not putting anyone up for interview but they managed to roll out Vince to give his view
Apart from Corbynites obviously.
But if the alternatives are imprisonment forever or trying to win and retain power, without that third option, more will try to retain power than duck out [when exile was an option].
Of course, that exile option would've entailed effectively letting a war criminal get away unpunished and living in safety and prosperity. It's far from ideal. But it may have been a way for a better resolution to occur.
Sky announce that the Kremlin want to avoid any steps to raise tensions in Syria and a deconfliction telephone line is active and being used by both sides.
Significant hopefully
Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey has been criticised for calling the death of career criminal Henry Vincent a 'tragedy' for his family and telling those tearing the flowers down to 'act respectfully'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5606801/Scotland-Yard-Commissioner-says-laying-flowers-not-crime-death-burglar-tragedy.html
Surprised he didn't say the bloke who got stabbed was only in the game because of social media.
The burgled house has had to have boarding put up at the windows to prevent any attack.
Why are the police not acting to stop the open provocation of the burgled couple with the flower shrine opposite their house?
Now, I happen to be on the side that thinks Facebook is an evil company, and it’s great to see their evil business model get some sunlight, but it’s disengenuous to try and pretend it’s anything other than politically motivated on behalf of those who lost the US election (and the Brexit referendum).
So yes you can delete that photo, but it has already been used. I wonder if people are happy that their innocent photo of them and their kids is being used in this way (especially the auto-tagging, which is used to build inter-person networks and relationships etc).
* I went to a talk last year, where they are now doing video with automatic object recognition, semantic segmentation and structure.
https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/984342170521030656
The previous action did stop chemical weapons being used during the year following.
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-43738432
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/12/emmanuel-macron-launches-charm-offensive-counter-wave-protests/
The Equifax data leak scandal did not get half the publicity it should have got IMO, your data is their product and their business model is buying and selling that data. The main difference between Equifax and Facebook is that we have no relationship at all with Equifax, which should be an aggravating factor in the data leak.