@BorisJohnson Follow Follow @BorisJohnson More Appalled to see another vocal Russian journalist, Arkady Babchenko, murdered. My thoughts are with his wife and young daughter. We must defend freedom of speech and it is vital that those responsible are now held to account.
The local elections earlier this month showed the mountain the Conservatives have to climb to win the Mayoralty. Khan isn't perfect by any stretch but he's done nothing incalculably stupid so far to weaken his chances and I can't see the likes of David Lammy being that interested.
The Conservatives probably need a non-political figure who can draw some votes off Labour - the litany of ex-ministers and backbench nonentities mentioned so far will be individually and collectively crushed by the Labour machine.
I'd like Maajid Nawaz to be the LD candidate for the London Mayoralty but I don't imagine he'd be interested. He's the only LD figure I can see breaking through.
I'm not arguing against his conviction. I read the prior judgement and he was warned, in no uncertain terms, that if he did anything like this again (hassling suspects going to court), he would do time.
You could argue he was filming convicted men (not suspects), you could argue 13 months is draconian, but he knew the very real risks and crossed the line pretty much deliberately.
But the way it was so briskly and secretly executed, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel English, and it adds to the impression that the authorities are still trying to hoodwink the public on this incendiary issue. And we all remember that the first person to highlight it was Nick Griffin, another controversial rightwing figure, who was arrested and tried for speaking (it turns out) the truth.
All very dodgy.
Don't mess with the administration of justice. The courts really don't like it and they have the powers to take swingeing action if you piss them off.
Fortunately, not many people are as malevolently stupid as Tommy Robinson.
Hmm.
I still don't think any courts should have the power to secretly imprison anyone. And when it is done in relation to this contentious issue.... where we already know some politicians and police have tried to cover things up?
It may be legal but it doesn't look or smell very good.
In legal terminology, Robinson is an arse.
He got everything he deserved.
If English law was perfect, I'd say case closed. But when it comes to this kind of grooming, and people who publicise it, I refer you to R v Nick Griffin, 2006. So, hmm.
That case does not prove what you think it does. Griffin and a colleague were acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred in relation to words spoken during a campaign, which was filmed secretly. Griffin said a lot of things about Muslims and Islam, including allegations about grooming. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to show that what he said fell within the scope of the relevant legislation.
Of course the authorities should have investigated. They should have done so in 2002 when Ann Cryer MP first raised concerns. This was before Griffin raised anything. Indeed it was as a result of Ann Cryer going public that Griffin stood against her in her constituency to make political capital out of what she had said.
Ann Cryer deserves a lot more public credit than she gets, or has ever had.
Boris shows that his greatest talent still lies in putting his foot in his mouth: No sooner had Boris grieved over Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko's "murder" than Babchenko appeared alive at a news conference, saying he staged his own murder.
Don't mess with the administration of justice. The courts really don't like it and they have the powers to take swingeing action if you piss them off.
Fortunately, not many people are as malevolently stupid as Tommy Robinson.
Hmm.
I still don't think any courts should have the power to secretly imprison anyone. And when it is done in relation to this contentious issue.... where we already know some politicians and police have tried to cover things up?
It may be legal but it doesn't look or smell very good.
In legal terminology, Robinson is an arse.
He got everything he deserved.
If English law was perfect, I'd say case closed. But when it comes to this kind of grooming, and people who publicise it, I refer you to R v Nick Griffin, 2006. So, hmm.
That case does not prove what you think it does. Griffin and a colleague were acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred in relation to words spoken during a campaign, which was filmed secretly. Griffin said a lot of things about Muslims and Islam, including allegations about grooming. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to show that what he said fell within the scope of the relevant legislation.
Of course the authorities should have investigated. They should have done so in 2002 when Ann Cryer MP first raised concerns. This was before Griffin raised anything. Indeed it was as a result of Ann Cryer going public that Griffin stood against her in her constituency to make political capital out of what she had said.
Ann Cryer deserves a lot more public credit than she gets, or has ever had.
Agreed. What Chris Mullins' diaries show is that quite a few MPs knew of these issues but were afraid, unlike her, to speak up. She deserves bouquets. Those who knew or suspected - but stayed silent - deserve brickbats.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Soros is a curious figure. On the one hand a liberal-left hero, yet also THE archetype of international capitalism, which lefties purport to disdain.
A fascinating life story, whatever one thinks of him. Brain the size of Texas.
A former colleague of mine, who used to run the Global Macro Prop book at Goldman, read every page of every book Soros wrote on investing and trading (and he wrote a fair number of them). Each page was covered with his annotations and underlinings. He - and I regard him as the best trader I've ever worked with - believed himself to be a mere pale shadow of Soros in terms of ability.
As you say, a brilliant man.
I used to know his son, Robert, who ran the equities business as Soros, reasonably well, and he was also incredibly smart. (Unlike his father, mind, he tried/tries to keep an extremely low profile.)
I take your point (and cyclefree's), and I have already read the Secret Barrister blog.
I still don't think any courts should have the power to secretly imprison anyone. And when it is done in relation to this contentious issue.... where we already know some politicians and police have tried to cover things up?
It may be legal but it doesn't look or smell very good.
I agree with this. It wouldn't have been prejudicial for the judge to allow reporting that Tommy Robinson had been jailed for contempt of court and for breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence. (This is now accepted). I imagine he has re-lectured the jurors on their duty.
A lot of the problem here is aftermath from the state's failure to deal with the gang-run child abuse in several areas of British cities. A full recovery from that failure isn't in sight, and it won't be around the corner even if all the defendants currently on trial or awaiting trial are convicted.
Labour's funds problem now is that for all their extra members they no longer get anywhere near the City and business donations that went to New Labour under Blair and Brown with almost all those donors now going to the Tories. Beyond members they are almost entirely reliant on the unions for funds
The Conservatives spent £18.6 million losing their overall majority last year.
Don't mess with the administration of justice. The courts really don't like it and they have the powers to take swingeing action if you piss them off.
Fortunately, not many people are as malevolently stupid as Tommy Robinson.
Hmm.
I still don't think any courts should have the power to secretly imprison anyone. And when it is done in relation to this contentious issue.... where we already know some politicians and police have tried to cover things up?
It may be legal but it doesn't look or smell very good.
In legal terminology, Robinson is an arse.
He got everything he deserved.
If English law was perfect, I'd say case closed. But when it comes to this kind of grooming, and people who publicise it, I refer you to R v Nick Griffin, 2006. So, hmm.
That case does not prove what you think it does. Griffin and a colleague were acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred in relation to words spoken during a campaign, which was filmed secretly. Griffin said a lot of things about Muslims and Islam, including allegations about grooming. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to show that what he said fell within the scope of the relevant legislation.
Of course the authorities should have investigated. They should have done so in 2002 when Ann Cryer MP first raised concerns. This was before Griffin raised anything. Indeed it was as a result of Ann Cryer going public that Griffin stood against her in her constituency to make political capital out of what she had said.
Ann Cryer deserves a lot more public credit than she gets, or has ever had.
Agreed. What Chris Mullins' diaries show is that quite a few MPs knew of these issues but were afraid, unlike her, to speak up. She deserves bouquets. Those who knew or suspected - but stayed silent - deserve brickbats.
And so do the victims and family of victims who were ignored but kept at it until people like cryer took notice.
I'd like Maajid Nawaz to be the LD candidate for the London Mayoralty but I don't imagine he'd be interested. He's the only LD figure I can see breaking through.
I think - sadly - Maajid has decided that being a political candidate is a f*cking sh*t job. Especially as his best case scenario would producing a decent third place finish.
Congratulations Maajid! You worked your arse off for 18 months, and managed to get into the upper teens. You must be very proud of yourself.
Boris shows that his greatest talent still lies in putting his foot in his mouth: No sooner had Boris grieved over Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko's "murder" than Babchenko appeared alive at a news conference, saying he staged his own murder.
I'd like Maajid Nawaz to be the LD candidate for the London Mayoralty but I don't imagine he'd be interested. He's the only LD figure I can see breaking through.
I think - sadly - Maajid has decided that being a political candidate is a f*cking sh*t job. Especially as his best case scenario would producing a decent third place finish.
Congratulations Maajid! You worked your arse off for 18 months, and managed to get into the upper teens. You must be very proud of yourself.
Labour's funds problem now is that for all their extra members they no longer get anywhere near the City and business donations that went to New Labour under Blair and Brown with almost all those donors now going to the Tories. Beyond members they are almost entirely reliant on the unions for funds
And the Tories problem is that they've got virtually no members so are entirely reliant on donations from millionaires.
These figures include only large donations (above £1,000 I think) which have to be declared to the Electoral Commission. Labour's income from membership subscriptions is not included as they are below the reportable threshold. In 2016 - the latest published figure - it was more than £14m for the year, which is about £3.5m per quarter. So the gap between the two main parties is likely to be much less than these numbers suggest.
Boris shows that his greatest talent still lies in putting his foot in his mouth: No sooner had Boris grieved over Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko's "murder" than Babchenko appeared alive at a news conference, saying he staged his own murder.
Are you saying Boris should have remained silent? If so, for how long?
Besides, you neglect to mention an interesting fact: allegedly they did this to try and capture someone who was trying to assassinate him. Frankly I find this surprising and like a plot from a pulp detective story than reality. But then again, they've arrested someone.
I'm not sure Cyclefree is completely accurate here. I think Griffin first raised the issue of grooming in 2001, before Ann Cryer? I am ready to be corrected. Cryer was certainly brave.
Anyway the idea that Griffin simply should have taken his evidence to the police, rather than making a speech, is silly. As we know, the council and police in places like Rotherham were in cahoots, and actively covering it all up. An allegation from the leader of the BNP was not really gonna make them change their ways.
According to (1), Ann Cryer first publicised the cases she knew of in 2003. According to (2), the incident that led to Griffin's attempted prosecution was in 2004. That doesn't mean he wasn't saying stuff about it before that, though.
However I utterly disagree with your assertion that he should not have gone to the police. He should, and then if - as was sadly probable - he was rebuffed, he should have gone to his MP, or the MPs of the victims. And then, if still not getting anywhere, escalate. But apparently he just went out and gave speeches to people who, frankly, had no power to do anything except cause trouble. That alone would make it harder, not easier, for action to be taken.
If English law was perfect, I'd say case closed. But when it comes to this kind of grooming, and people who publicise it, I refer you to R v Nick Griffin, 2006. So, hmm.
That case does not prove what you think it does. Griffin and a colleague were acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred in relation to words spoken during a campaign, which was filmed secretly. Griffin said a lot of things about Muslims and Islam, including allegations about grooming. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to show that what he said fell within the scope of the relevant legislation.
Of course the authorities should have investigated. They should have done so in 2002 when Ann Cryer MP first raised concerns. This was before Griffin raised anything. Indeed it was as a result of Ann Cryer going public that Griffin stood against her in her constituency to make political capital out of what she had said.
Ann Cryer deserves a lot more public credit than she gets, or has ever had.
I'm not sure Cyclefree is completely accurate here. I think Griffin first raised the issue of grooming in 2001, before Ann Cryer? I am ready to be corrected. Cryer was certainly brave.
Anyway the idea that Griffin simply should have taken his evidence to the police, rather than making a speech, is silly. As we know, the council and police in places like Rotherham were in cahoots, and actively covering it all up. An allegation from the leader of the BNP was not really gonna make them change their ways.
The speeches for which he was tried were made in 2004. I don't know whether he said something in 2001.
Some in the police were covering up or did not see this as a priority. There were others in the police who were actively investigating. Had Griffin raised - and he could have done this anonymously to the police - it might, just might, have helped. Or he could have shared his evidence with Ann Cryer. But he didn't. He sought to make political capital out of what she said for his and his party's benefit. I'm not at all convinced that he was genuine in his concerns for the victims as opposed to wanting to use their suffering to advance his cause.
But I agree with you that it is always dangerous to dismiss a message because of who the messenger is.
I'm not sure Cyclefree is completely accurate here. I think Griffin first raised the issue of grooming in 2001, before Ann Cryer? I am ready to be corrected. Cryer was certainly brave.
Anyway the idea that Griffin simply should have taken his evidence to the police, rather than making a speech, is silly. As we know, the council and police in places like Rotherham were in cahoots, and actively covering it all up. An allegation from the leader of the BNP was not really gonna make them change their ways.
According to (1), Ann Cryer first publicised the cases she knew of in 2003. According to (2), the incident that led to Griffin's attempted prosecution was in 2004. That doesn't mean he wasn't saying stuff about it before that, though.
However I utterly disagree with your assertion that he should not have gone to the police. He should, and then if - as was sadly probable - he was rebuffed, he should have gone to his MP, or the MPs of the victims. And then, if still not getting anywhere, escalate. But apparently he just went out and gave speeches to people who, frankly, had no power to do anything except cause trouble. That alone would make it harder, not easier, for action to be taken.
I'd like Maajid Nawaz to be the LD candidate for the London Mayoralty but I don't imagine he'd be interested. He's the only LD figure I can see breaking through.
I think - sadly - Maajid has decided that being a political candidate is a f*cking sh*t job. Especially as his best case scenario would producing a decent third place finish.
Congratulations Maajid! You worked your arse off for 18 months, and managed to get into the upper teens. You must be very proud of yourself.
He might be better off in the Tory party.
Well, the LDs didn't cover themselves in glory in supporting him in Hamstead & Kilburn.
That being said, from an economic perspective, he's much more LD than Conservative.
Personal view: I think he quite likes being a public intellectual.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
I really wish they'd just call it another referendum rather than 'People's vote'. Even if the intent is not some attempt at some sort of word trickery, it comes across that way. Regardless of whatever polling might say about associations with specific words, people can tell they mean the same thing, right?
Meanwhile, in socialist paradise: ttps://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1001863102378528768
Feck, so your money is worth about 15% less at the end of work then it was when you got to the office (if you still have a job ofc ). Even if you were lucky and had your money in another currency you would need to be visiting the bank at least twice a day to not lose a huge amount of buying power through the day.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
No. For a public figure it is very hard to indeed to bring a libel case. The US has also stopped English libel judgments being enforced in the US. Remember: they have the First Amendment on free speech and take it very seriously.
I'd like Maajid Nawaz to be the LD candidate for the London Mayoralty but I don't imagine he'd be interested. He's the only LD figure I can see breaking through.
I think - sadly - Maajid has decided that being a political candidate is a f*cking sh*t job. Especially as his best case scenario would producing a decent third place finish.
Congratulations Maajid! You worked your arse off for 18 months, and managed to get into the upper teens. You must be very proud of yourself.
Right candidate at the wrong time in his last attempt perhaps, given the LDs being in the doldrums then.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Beck and Coulter are doing it deliberately. I was also astonished to see Maria Bartiromo having a go at Obama and Clinton and coming up with weird fantastic arguments on Fox and Friends.
The Babchenko plot looks like a very Ukrainian scandal.
Mrs Sandpit has been doing some digging on this one. Obviously there’s a lot of misinformation around on all sides, but it sounds like what happened is that the Ukrainian security services got wind of a Russki hit squad in Kiev targeting Babchenko, they picked up the assassin and had him confirm to his gang that the deed was done to try and smoke out the rest of the gang, backed up by the Kiev police responding as if the murder had actually happened. The guy’s wife even thought he was dead for 24 hours, that’s going to take some forgiving!
I really wish they'd just call it another referendum rather than 'People's vote'. Even if the intent is not some attempt at some sort of word trickery, it comes across that way. Regardless of whatever polling might say about associations with specific words, people can tell they mean the same thing, right?
It seems a bad move if they are serious about wanting another referendum, the public can smell weasel words like this a mile away.
@BorisJohnson Follow Follow @BorisJohnson More Appalled to see another vocal Russian journalist, Arkady Babchenko, murdered. My thoughts are with his wife and young daughter. We must defend freedom of speech and it is vital that those responsible are now held to account.
What of it? He presumably wasn't in the know and reacted to events as they appeared, and if he was in the know he should have done the same for that reason surely?
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
No. For a public figure it is very hard to indeed to bring a libel case. The US has also stopped English libel judgments being enforced in the US. Remember: they have the First Amendment on free speech and take it very seriously.
I am aware of the First Amendment but can someone say anything, absolute lies.
I'm not sure Cyclefree is completely accurate here. I think Griffin first raised the issue of grooming in 2001, before Ann Cryer? I am ready to be corrected. Cryer was certainly brave.
Anyway the idea that Griffin simply should have taken his evidence to the police, rather than making a speech, is silly. As we know, the council and police in places like Rotherham were in cahoots, and actively covering it all up. An allegation from the leader of the BNP was not really gonna make them change their ways.
According to (1), Ann Cryer first publicised the cases she knew of in 2003. According to (2), the incident that led to Griffin's attempted prosecution was in 2004. That doesn't mean he wasn't saying stuff about it before that, though.
However I utterly disagree with your assertion that he should not have gone to the police. He should, and then if - as was sadly probable - he was rebuffed, he should have gone to his MP, or the MPs of the victims. And then, if still not getting anywhere, escalate. But apparently he just went out and gave speeches to people who, frankly, had no power to do anything except cause trouble. That alone would make it harder, not easier, for action to be taken.
Griffin sought to exploit this. As Robinson has tried to do. Cryer and others sought to stop it. That's the difference.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think there is a moral difference between Griffin and Robinson. Nick Griffin is a genuine 100% racist, xenophobe and Fascist. Robinson is a more complex, slightly more sympathetic character. I wouldn't want to give him a reference for a job as vicar, but I wouldn't dismiss him as a stupid Nazi either. He is clearly confused. He is also quite brave. He could easily die, in prison, for what he says, in public.
With a better education and better advice (and less of an ugly, violent temper) he might have made a reasonable voice for the ignored white working class.
Labour's funds problem now is that for all their extra members they no longer get anywhere near the City and business donations that went to New Labour under Blair and Brown with almost all those donors now going to the Tories. Beyond members they are almost entirely reliant on the unions for funds
And the Tories problem is that they've got virtually no members so are entirely reliant on donations from millionaires.
These figures include only large donations (above £1,000 I think) which have to be declared to the Electoral Commission. Labour's income from membership subscriptions is not included as they are below the reportable threshold. In 2016 - the latest published figure - it was more than £14m for the year, which is about £3.5m per quarter. So the gap between the two main parties is likely to be much less than these numbers suggest.
The Tories still have almost 200 000 members even if not the massed ranks of Momentum
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
No. For a public figure it is very hard to indeed to bring a libel case. The US has also stopped English libel judgments being enforced in the US. Remember: they have the First Amendment on free speech and take it very seriously.
I am aware of the First Amendment but can someone say anything, absolute lies.
I thought the fundamental difference re libel is that in the UK if you make a claim you then have to prove it is true if someone beings a libel suit, but in the USA the person bringing that libel suit has to prove what was claimed is not true. So it is presumably harder to win such a case if you want to just stop someone saying crap about you.
But there are obvious restrictions on free speech in cases of public safety I presume.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
No. For a public figure it is very hard to indeed to bring a libel case. The US has also stopped English libel judgments being enforced in the US. Remember: they have the First Amendment on free speech and take it very seriously.
I am aware of the First Amendment but can someone say anything, absolute lies.
Yes, pretty much anything that’s not designed to cause a panic or a riot - the stereotypical shout of “Fire” in a crowded theatre is the line where speech becomes illegal. A civil suit for defamation has a pretty high bar to success, with the burden of proof on the offended person to prove actual damages.
I read in the Times (IIRC) that they focus-grouped the phrase "second referendum" and found it was really unpopular, so they have decided to call their second referendum the "people's vote", simply for that reason.
I really wish they'd just call it another referendum rather than 'People's vote'. Even if the intent is not some attempt at some sort of word trickery, it comes across that way. Regardless of whatever polling might say about associations with specific words, people can tell they mean the same thing, right?
It seems a bad move if they are serious about wanting another referendum, the public can smell weasel words like this a mile away.
I read in the Times (IIRC) that they focus-grouped the phrase "second referendum" and found it was really unpopular, so they have decided to call their second referendum the "people's vote", simply for that reason.
Pff. And they accuse Leavers of duplicity?
The 'people' presumably mainly being mainly in Oxford, Cambridge and central London and Manchester?
Mr. T, there's a worse problem which is that it's obvious bullshit. It's not like anyone's going to be fooled. And as the term's loathing is common knowledge, the term 'second referendum' will be used constantly.
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
I really wish they'd just call it another referendum rather than 'People's vote'. Even if the intent is not some attempt at some sort of word trickery, it comes across that way. Regardless of whatever polling might say about associations with specific words, people can tell they mean the same thing, right?
It seems a bad move if they are serious about wanting another referendum, the public can smell weasel words like this a mile away.
I read in the Times (IIRC) that they focus-grouped the phrase "second referendum" and found it was really unpopular, so they have decided to call their second referendum the "people's vote", simply for that reason.
Pff. And they accuse Leavers of duplicity?
The 'people' presumably mainly being mainly in Oxford, Cambridge and central London and Manchester?
I'm not even opposed in principle to a second referendum, I just cannot see a non weaselly reason for a rebrand of the vote.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
No. For a public figure it is very hard to indeed to bring a libel case. The US has also stopped English libel judgments being enforced in the US. Remember: they have the First Amendment on free speech and take it very seriously.
I am aware of the First Amendment but can someone say anything, absolute lies.
I thought the fundamental difference re libel is that in the UK if you make a claim you then have to prove it is true if someone beings a libel suit, but in the USA the person bringing that libel suit has to prove what was claimed is not true. So it is presumably harder to win such a case if you want to just stop someone saying crap about you.
But there are obvious restrictions on free speech in cases of public safety I presume.
If you are interested there is a lot (and I mean A LOT) of detail here:
It's about an ongoing lawsuit in Ohio about a man accused of sexual harassment. It is a bizarre lawsuit as the plaintiff has already admitted he sexually harassed one of the women in question and - even more astoundingly - committed perjury on a tangential point in his affidavit.
I know about it because I researched some basic points on the plaintiff (who is an Irving-style pseudoscholar) for the defence.
Off topic, and a consequence of the Roseanne tweets and fallout, I was staggered to see that a large number of people I considered misguided, but honest and interesting also retweeted the Soros story about him either being an SS member or making his money from sending other Jews to the concentration camps.
I used to think that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were just the other side of the coin to Michael Moore and the like. But it's hard not worry about their - and they are supposed to be the thoughtful ones - willingness to spread the gravest of libels.
Always a mistake to libel someone with unlimited funds
Does libel law exist in the US like it does here ?
No. For a public figure it is very hard to indeed to bring a libel case. The US has also stopped English libel judgments being enforced in the US. Remember: they have the First Amendment on free speech and take it very seriously.
I am aware of the First Amendment but can someone say anything, absolute lies.
I thought the fundamental difference re libel is that in the UK if you make a claim you then have to prove it is true if someone beings a libel suit, but in the USA the person bringing that libel suit has to prove what was claimed is not true. So it is presumably harder to win such a case if you want to just stop someone saying crap about you.
But there are obvious restrictions on free speech in cases of public safety I presume.
If you are interested there is a lot (and I mean A LOT) of detail here:
It's about an ongoing lawsuit in Ohio about a man accused of sexual harassment. It is a bizarre lawsuit as the plaintiff has already admitted he sexually harassed one of the women in question and - even more astoundingly - committed perjury on a tangential point in his affidavit.
I know about it because I researched some basic points on the plaintiff (who is an Irving-style pseudoscholar) for the defence.
Many thanks. I'll mark it down for later, though I'm not sure just how interested I will be!
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
Am I quoting the Guardian?!
Anyway yes the old King's X is now completely gone. They've built a whole new glistening inner suburb, keeping the best of the old, it's super impressive.
Super expensive too. I really like that Gasholder development - the implicit industrial heritage, and the location right next to a lock with some history itself. That development though is so compromised in that they have to have pie-section flats. The asking price for a one bedroom flat so compromised is nearly GBP1m.
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
Am I quoting the Guardian?!
Anyway yes the old King's X is now completely gone. They've built a whole new glistening inner suburb, keeping the best of the old, it's super impressive.
Super expensive too. I really like that Gasholder development - the implicit industrial heritage, and the location right next to a lock with some history itself. That development though is so compromised in that they have to have pie-section flats. The asking price for a one bedroom flat so compromised is nearly GBP1m.
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
But even yesterday I was able to find a house of almost 3000 sq ft for a million quid in London. I know there is a premium for living in something nice close to the centre of the big smoke, but even compared to what you can get slightly out from the centre that premium for a relative shoe box just seems completely enormous.
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
Am I quoting the Guardian?!
Anyway yes the old King's X is now completely gone. They've built a whole new glistening inner suburb, keeping the best of the old, it's super impressive.
Super expensive too. I really like that Gasholder development - the implicit industrial heritage, and the location right next to a lock with some history itself. That development though is so compromised in that they have to have pie-section flats. The asking price for a one bedroom flat so compromised is nearly GBP1m.
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
But even yesterday I was able to find a house of almost 3000 sq ft for a million quid in London. I know there is a premium for living in something nice close to the centre of the big smoke, but even compared to what you can get slightly out from the centre that premium for a relative shoe box just seems completely enormous.
You'll be very rich if you're right and less so if you're wrong.
@BorisJohnson Follow Follow @BorisJohnson More Appalled to see another vocal Russian journalist, Arkady Babchenko, murdered. My thoughts are with his wife and young daughter. We must defend freedom of speech and it is vital that those responsible are now held to account.
Why "oops"?
It's an entirely reasonable response to the information that he had at the time.
There's plenty to criticise our esteemed Foreign Secretary for without being tendentious
@BorisJohnson Follow Follow @BorisJohnson More Appalled to see another vocal Russian journalist, Arkady Babchenko, murdered. My thoughts are with his wife and young daughter. We must defend freedom of speech and it is vital that those responsible are now held to account.
Why "oops"?
It's an entirely reasonable response to the information that he had at the time.
There's plenty to criticise our esteemed Foreign Secretary for without being tendentious
OTOH, Boris is the minister responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service, so it would be interesting to know whether he asked them if the story was kosher and what their reply was before twittering-forth.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I'm a Lib Dem member and part of the 41% who oppose... I imagine I'm in a tiny space on the Venn diagram. However, drugs are the one (probably the only) subject in which my instincts are not very liberal. I don't dismiss your arguments though - on the surface they make some sense but I don't think it's a fence that I can jump myself. I wouldn't actively campaign against decriminalisation but I'd be very queasy about any campaign in which it featured heavily.
I guess we all have at least one issue with which we are majorly out of line with the party that we support and that's no bad thing.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I'm a Lib Dem member and part of the 41% who oppose... I imagine I'm in a tiny space on the Venn diagram. However, drugs are the one (probably the only) subject in which my instincts are not very liberal. I don't dismiss your arguments though - on the surface they make some sense but I don't think it's a fence that I can jump myself. I wouldn't actively campaign against decriminalisation but I'd be very queasy about any campaign in which it featured heavily.
I guess we all have at least one issue with which we are majorly out of line with the party that we support and that's no bad thing.
Dr Foxy is quite against cannabis legalisation too, as a LD, IIRC.
@BorisJohnson Follow Follow @BorisJohnson More Appalled to see another vocal Russian journalist, Arkady Babchenko, murdered. My thoughts are with his wife and young daughter. We must defend freedom of speech and it is vital that those responsible are now held to account.
Why "oops"?
It's an entirely reasonable response to the information that he had at the time.
There's plenty to criticise our esteemed Foreign Secretary for without being tendentious
OTOH, Boris is the minister responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service, so it would be interesting to know whether he asked them if the story was kosher and what their reply was before twittering-forth.
And maybe they said to react how he would based on the information in the public domain, who knows. Whether he knew or not I', really struggling to see the concern.
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I kinda agree. But then I think: do I really want to smell sickly sweet ganja wherever I go?
It’s a horrible, fuggy and decadent smell, and those on it usually behave like morons in public. Not a fan.
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I kinda agree. But then I think: do I really want to smell sickly sweet ganja wherever I go?
It’s a horrible, fuggy and decadent smell, and those on it usually behave like morons in public. Not a fan.
I presume there'd be the same restrictions on smoking indoors or in specific outdoor public spaces even, so not sure it would really be much of an issue. Not a user myself, but I just cannot internally justify opposing its legalisation given what is legal in any case.
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
Am I quoting the Guardian?!
Anyway yes the old King's X is now completely gone. They've built a whole new glistening inner suburb, keeping the best of the old, it's super impressive.
Super expensive too. I really like that Gasholder development - the implicit industrial heritage, and the location right next to a lock with some history itself. That development though is so compromised in that they have to have pie-section flats. The asking price for a one bedroom flat so compromised is nearly GBP1m.
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
But even yesterday I was able to find a house of almost 3000 sq ft for a million quid in London. I know there is a premium for living in something nice close to the centre of the big smoke, but even compared to what you can get slightly out from the centre that premium for a relative shoe box just seems completely enormous.
You'll be very rich if you're right and less so if you're wrong.
You can buy a 1,500 square foot flat on Shaftesbury Ave in good condition in a nice block for £1.5m.
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I kinda agree. But then I think: do I really want to smell sickly sweet ganja wherever I go?
It’s a horrible, fuggy and decadent smell, and those on it usually behave like morons in public. Not a fan.
Presumably the same laws regarding tobacco would also apply to weed.
Is there a google cache of that (or similar) so non-subscribers can read that?
It doesn't matter. You know roughly what they're saying. They're making the positive case (Imagine) for a UK audience, and I doubt they're making the negative case (for whoever dis-benefits) quite so loudly.
The FT can and should publish articles that are more than froth. They seem to wish to prove otherwise.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I'm a Lib Dem member and part of the 41% who oppose... I imagine I'm in a tiny space on the Venn diagram. However, drugs are the one (probably the only) subject in which my instincts are not very liberal. I don't dismiss your arguments though - on the surface they make some sense but I don't think it's a fence that I can jump myself. I wouldn't actively campaign against decriminalisation but I'd be very queasy about any campaign in which it featured heavily.
I guess we all have at least one issue with which we are majorly out of line with the party that we support and that's no bad thing.
Fair enough. I think weed numbs ambition, deadens brain cells, and turns people into insufferable bores. But the same can be said of alcohol. I just think it's a great example of a liberal policy in the truest sense of the word, and weed is definitely a choice (unlike heroin, for example, where the addict has no choice).
People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well reduce harm, tax it and take money off the criminals. The only argument I can see against it is a moral one, that it pollutes the body - but so do many things (alcohol, exhaust fumes, sugary drinks). And is it really the state's job to police morality (the acceptance of gay sex and, latterly, gay marriage, are examples of that).
Beyond preventing serious and lasting harm, I'm not sure what business the state has regulating what we put inside our bodies and it geniunely baffles me that 41% of the population think differently. To me, that figure seems rather high (no pun intended!).
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
Am I quoting the Guardian?!
Anyway yes the old King's X is now completely gone. They've built a whole new glistening inner suburb, keeping the best of the old, it's super impressive.
Super expensive too. I really like that Gasholder development - the implicit industrial heritage, and the location right next to a lock with some history itself. That development though is so compromised in that they have to have pie-section flats. The asking price for a one bedroom flat so compromised is nearly GBP1m.
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
But even yesterday I was able to find a house of almost 3000 sq ft for a million quid in London. I know there is a premium for living in something nice close to the centre of the big smoke, but even compared to what you can get slightly out from the centre that premium for a relative shoe box just seems completely enormous.
You'll be very rich if you're right and less so if you're wrong.
You can buy a 1,500 square foot flat on Shaftesbury Ave in good condition in a nice block for £1.5m.
I'd rather buy my old 2 Bedroom flat in Bury Place for £800k.... Shaftesbury Ave is always congested....
Totally o/t but an interviewee on BBC East has just said that 'farmers are always optimistic'.
I think you have to be, don't you? The ones that kill themselves are the realists.
As Pope John XXIII once commented, 'There are three ways a man may ruin himself - wine, women and farming. My father chose the most boring of the three.'
BTW I trust your Venerable Majesty is merry indeed at the result from Chelmsford?
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I kinda agree. But then I think: do I really want to smell sickly sweet ganja wherever I go?
It’s a horrible, fuggy and decadent smell, and those on it usually behave like morons in public. Not a fan.
Presumably the same laws regarding tobacco would also apply to weed.
If it were legalised, I'd ban the smoking of it in public spaces.
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
All drugs, including alcohol, can be harmful, and those that are mind-altering, including cannbinoids, often make individuals unhinged in different ways. This applies to prescription drugs as well. Most terrorist atrocities and indiscriminate shootings are perpetrated by drug abusers, but no one seems to focus on this cause when such an event occurs. The police seem to do very little about those who manufacture/distribute/sell noxious compounds.
It is difficult to ban alcohol in Western societies, but much more could be done to restrict and regulate its use. However, making other mind-altering drugs available without prescription would be an abdication of responsibility by those who enacted such legislation. Such drugs should only be available if there is a therapeutic benefit, and then only by a prescription issued by a registered medical practitioner.
Wildly off topic but I went for a walk through the new King's Cross today, from St Pancras all the way home to Camden, via the canal. I've seen bits of the redevelopment before but never really grasped its scale, or the way it fits together.
It is quite magnificent, an astonishing transformation. Full of kids and art and cafes and students and brilliant re-imagining of antique industrial buildings. The gas holders, for instance, are now luxurious flats, yet they've kept the iconic iron frames.
I can remember when this area was Satanically dingy and malignant. It's where TV and movie people always went, if they wanted a location that said Urban Decay.
Now it is sleek, chic, even idyllic.
Not all the world gets worse.
Nice of you to quote the Guardian so closely.
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
Am I quoting the Guardian?!
Anyway yes the old King's X is now completely gone. They've built a whole new glistening inner suburb, keeping the best of the old, it's super impressive.
Super expensive too. I really like that Gasholder development - the implicit industrial heritage, and the location right next to a lock with some history itself. That development though is so compromised in that they have to have pie-section flats. The asking price for a one bedroom flat so compromised is nearly GBP1m.
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
But even yesterday I was able to find a house of almost 3000 sq ft for a million quid in London. I know there is a premium for living in something nice close to the centre of the big smoke, but even compared to what you can get slightly out from the centre that premium for a relative shoe box just seems completely enormous.
You'll be very rich if you're right and less so if you're wrong.
You can buy a 1,500 square foot flat on Shaftesbury Ave in good condition in a nice block for £1.5m.
So buy it.
You can dive off a cliff into rocks. You can talk to lemons and imagine their comments. You can take a fucking grip on reality.
Fair enough. I think weed numbs ambition, deadens brain cells, and turns people into insufferable bores. But the same can be said of alcohol. I just think it's a great example of a liberal policy in the truest sense of the word, and weed is definitely a choice (unlike heroin, for example, where the addict has no choice).
People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well reduce harm, tax it and take money off the criminals. The only argument I can see against it is a moral one, that it pollutes the body - but so do many things (alcohol, exhaust fumes, sugary drinks). And is it really the state's job to police morality (the acceptance of gay sex and, latterly, gay marriage, are examples of that).
Beyond preventing serious and lasting harm, I'm not sure what business the state has regulating what we put inside our bodies and it geniunely baffles me that 41% of the population think differently. To me, that figure seems rather high (no pun intended!).
The problem with the argument that the State shouldn't interfere is that addictions to drugs, gambling, alcohol and other things don't begin and end with the addict. They affect the immediate family and ripple out from there.
I have a family member who is an alcoholic and he has done some silly things but mercifully harmed no one else. The problem is addicts can and do affect the lives of others and it's at that point the State, which is duty bound to protect us all as much from the consequences of those closest to us as well as the actions of malevolent strangers, has to get involved.
People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well reduce harm, tax it and take money off the criminals. The only argument I can see against it is a moral one, that it pollutes the body - but so do many things (alcohol, exhaust fumes, sugary drinks). And is it really the state's job to police morality (the acceptance of gay sex and, latterly, gay marriage, are examples of that).
I agree that it's not the state's job to police morality... but equally I'm not too keen on the idea of any public services being funded off the back of human misery and people destroying their lives by abusing drugs - let alone relying on that particular stream of money. Only if the tax from the drugs were used specifically to educate/fight against drug abuse could I just about accept it. Of course I appreciate that all of the other things you mention which harm the body are already funding public services and I accept that as I don't worry about those I'm probably being ridiculously inconsistent... but I'm only human.
All drugs, including alcohol, can be harmful, and those that are mind-altering, including cannbinoids, often make individuals unhinged in different ways. This applies to prescription drugs as well. Most terrorist atrocities and indiscriminate shootings are perpetrated by drug abusers, but no one seems to focus on this cause when such an event occurs. The police seem to do very little about those who manufacture/distribute/sell noxious compounds.
It is difficult to ban alcohol in Western societies, but much more could be done to restrict and regulate its use. However, making other mind-altering drugs available without prescription would be an abdication of responsibility by those who enacted such legislation. Such drugs should only be available if there is a therapeutic benefit, and then only by a prescription issued by a registered medical practitioner.
I bet you're fun at parties.
What of the fun, what of the therapeutic benefits - be it of alcohol, cannabis, or prescription drugs? There is circumstantial evidence othat antidepressants are linked to mass shootings, undeniable proof that in some circumstances they give some users the 'get up and go' to finally commit suicide. They have of course been made available only because of the 'theraputic benefit' by a 'licensed practitioner'. Yet they have proven effective at relieving misery in many, many more cases. We can't make something illegal just because of unpleasant side effects in a small minority of cases.
Without alcohol - used responsibly and in moderation - I suspect many more lives would be miserable. But the truth is if it were banned, people would manufacture and distribute it anyway, albeit without regulation. Just as they do with cannabis. And therein lies the problem. You can't ban people from doing something they're going to do anyway without a whole host of negative effects which far outweigh the negative effects of the drug itself.
This sits aside from the moral argument that the state should have no part in self-regarding actions. The state should step in, by all means, to stop a drunk from assaulting someone or abusing a child. But does the state have the right to stop a few lads getting drunk together on a friday night, even if it's bad for them? I don't go around telling other people how to live their lives, and certainly don't appreciate other people going around telling me how to live mine...
Totally o/t but an interviewee on BBC East has just said that 'farmers are always optimistic'.
I have family in farming, and knew a fair few others growing up. I never met a farmer who was optimistic, at least about farming.
My dad used to joke about a farmer friend of his who complained every year that this was the worst year ever on the farm, and yet every year managed to buy a new Range Rover ...
Some of you may already know about Jimmy Wales' new venture into news publishing to combat fake news. It's called WikiTribune. https://www.wikitribune.com/
Today I got an email from him:
"[When] I started WikiTribune, I listened to advice that we had to be very controlled. We had to have a complex review process. It was beautiful and what we published was of high quality - but we didn't really have genuine community control, and we didn't get very much work done.
So, [we] have undertaken a radical redesign of the site - not just the look but the actual operation. The push is to turn over genuine control to the community, to let people work live without a net. It's about trusting you, and it's about welcoming you.
So please, come and edit. Make some small change today. Click on 'add a new story' and add something that you find interesting. Be neutral. Cite your sources. Let's work together to do something radical.
--Jimbo"
This is either going to be a shining light for accurate unbiased news or a complete mess!
I have swung over time between legalisation and keeping it illegal. At the moment I am against legalisation, unless:
*) The law is strict about the types of cannabis sold; selling stronger types, or other drugs, is stamped on. Cannabis can only be sold through licensed outlets.
*) Driving or using machinery under the influence is strictly illegal, and results in jail time.
*) Ditto smoking in front of children, or in public.
*) Money gained from taxation is used to help users of cannabis and other drugs.
*) Encouraging the use of cannabis as a gateway drug, or selling to people under 18 (21?), results in jail time.
Basically: let people use cannabis if they want, as long as they do not haem wider society.
I do not believe for a moment that legalisation would stop crime; the criminals want to make money, and will just move on to other forms of cannabis and other drugs. However legalisation with rules strictly applied, could be a benefit to society. If the rules are applied.
If the Lib Dems would like to stop talking about Brexit for five minutes, they could and should be all over this one.
If the Lib Dems stopped banging on about Brexit and started talking about decriminalisation of soft drugs, they would have my vote. I don't partake myself, but the drugs one chooses to poison oneself with are a primarily self-regarding action and only become other-regarding in the sense of the damage that the illegal trade does. In the interests of harm reduction to the users and an expected reduction in associated crime (gangland knife attacks, etc), I struggle to think of a more sensible policy. Frankly, I'm surprised 41% oppose it. Why tell other people how to live their lives?
I kinda agree. But then I think: do I really want to smell sickly sweet ganja wherever I go?
It’s a horrible, fuggy and decadent smell, and those on it usually behave like morons in public. Not a fan.
Presumably the same laws regarding tobacco would also apply to weed.
Great. So every time I sit outside at a restaurant or in a pub garden I have to smell weed.
It's an entirely reasonable response to the information that he had at the time.
There's plenty to criticise our esteemed Foreign Secretary for without being tendentious
I don't think we can really blame Boris. But it's a spectacular own goal by the Ukrainians, who have reinforced the impression that everything that goes on in the area involves weird and/or sinister characters playing funny games.
Comments
Boris Johnson
Verified account
@BorisJohnson
Follow Follow @BorisJohnson
More
Appalled to see another vocal Russian journalist, Arkady Babchenko, murdered. My thoughts are with his wife and young daughter. We must defend freedom of speech and it is vital that those responsible are now held to account.
The Conservatives probably need a non-political figure who can draw some votes off Labour - the litany of ex-ministers and backbench nonentities mentioned so far will be individually and collectively crushed by the Labour machine.
I'd like Maajid Nawaz to be the LD candidate for the London Mayoralty but I don't imagine he'd be interested. He's the only LD figure I can see breaking through.
As you say, a brilliant man.
I used to know his son, Robert, who ran the equities business as Soros, reasonably well, and he was also incredibly smart. (Unlike his father, mind, he tried/tries to keep an extremely low profile.)
A lot of the problem here is aftermath from the state's failure to deal with the gang-run child abuse in several areas of British cities. A full recovery from that failure isn't in sight, and it won't be around the corner even if all the defendants currently on trial or awaiting trial are convicted.
Congratulations Maajid! You worked your arse off for 18 months, and managed to get into the upper teens. You must be very proud of yourself.
These figures include only large donations (above £1,000 I think) which have to be declared to the Electoral Commission. Labour's income from membership subscriptions is not included as they are below the reportable threshold. In 2016 - the latest published figure - it was more than £14m for the year, which is about £3.5m per quarter. So the gap between the two main parties is likely to be much less than these numbers suggest.
Besides, you neglect to mention an interesting fact: allegedly they did this to try and capture someone who was trying to assassinate him. Frankly I find this surprising and like a plot from a pulp detective story than reality. But then again, they've arrested someone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44307611
However I utterly disagree with your assertion that he should not have gone to the police. He should, and then if - as was sadly probable - he was rebuffed, he should have gone to his MP, or the MPs of the victims. And then, if still not getting anywhere, escalate. But apparently he just went out and gave speeches to people who, frankly, had no power to do anything except cause trouble. That alone would make it harder, not easier, for action to be taken.
(1): https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/west-yorkshire-and-the-dales/bradford/heartbreak-of-mp-s-lone-battle-to-tackle-sex-abuse-in-bradford-1-8285026
(2): https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/03/ukcrime.thefarright
Edited extra bit:
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1001860536479383552
Some in the police were covering up or did not see this as a priority. There were others in the police who were actively investigating. Had Griffin raised - and he could have done this anonymously to the police - it might, just might, have helped. Or he could have shared his evidence with Ann Cryer. But he didn't. He sought to make political capital out of what she said for his and his party's benefit. I'm not at all convinced that he was genuine in his concerns for the victims as opposed to wanting to use their suffering to advance his cause.
But I agree with you that it is always dangerous to dismiss a message because of who the messenger is.
Griffin sought to exploit this. As Robinson has tried to do. Cryer and others sought to stop it. That's the difference.
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1001863102378528768
That being said, from an economic perspective, he's much more LD than Conservative.
Personal view: I think he quite likes being a public intellectual.
(And also plenty of money, if less, and granted the Tories also have voters on their side who are presumably also people, but nevermind)
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1001829991351574528
Blair reached 44% of the voters in 1997 as well as getting more money from rich people
But there are obvious restrictions on free speech in cases of public safety I presume.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
So the iconic behind-Kings Cross terrace of Mike Leigh's High Hopes is now gone?
http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as280-richard-carriers-lawsuit-andrew-torrez/
Be warned, it's a podcast and an hour long.
It's about an ongoing lawsuit in Ohio about a man accused of sexual harassment. It is a bizarre lawsuit as the plaintiff has already admitted he sexually harassed one of the women in question and - even more astoundingly - committed perjury on a tangential point in his affidavit.
I know about it because I researched some basic points on the plaintiff (who is an Irving-style pseudoscholar) for the defence.
Followed by High mid-term and Late mid-term
There's either something absolutely amazing happening with London, or it's a bubble. It might just be the former. London may just evolving into the world capital. Brexit might even help. Or, none of that.
I rather want to live in the Gasholder nonetheless.
https://www.ft.com/content/b6642e42-63f4-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56
So long as woolly ball devotees have Pimms, I'm sure the world will keep spinning on its axis.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-hunt-puffyfaced-trio-who-ran-off-from-clinic-after-receiving-2000-worth-of-treatments-a3851596.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunrobin_Castle
https://tinyurl.com/ybmgf64p
It's an entirely reasonable response to the information that he had at the time.
There's plenty to criticise our esteemed Foreign Secretary for without being tendentious
The other estates I have a claim to are Titsey Place, Trentham Gardens and Invercauld Castle. But Dunrobin is the one that I'd really like.
I guess we all have at least one issue with which we are majorly out of line with the party that we support and that's no bad thing.
It’s a horrible, fuggy and decadent smell, and those on it usually behave like morons in public. Not a fan.
The FT can and should publish articles that are more than froth. They seem to wish to prove otherwise.
People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well reduce harm, tax it and take money off the criminals. The only argument I can see against it is a moral one, that it pollutes the body - but so do many things (alcohol, exhaust fumes, sugary drinks). And is it really the state's job to police morality (the acceptance of gay sex and, latterly, gay marriage, are examples of that).
Beyond preventing serious and lasting harm, I'm not sure what business the state has regulating what we put inside our bodies and it geniunely baffles me that 41% of the population think differently. To me, that figure seems rather high (no pun intended!).
As Pope John XXIII once commented, 'There are three ways a man may ruin himself - wine, women and farming. My father chose the most boring of the three.'
BTW I trust your Venerable Majesty is merry indeed at the result from Chelmsford?
It is difficult to ban alcohol in Western societies, but much more could be done to restrict and regulate its use. However, making other mind-altering drugs available without prescription would be an abdication of responsibility by those who enacted such legislation. Such drugs should only be available if there is a therapeutic benefit, and then only by a prescription issued by a registered medical practitioner.
You can dive off a cliff into rocks.
You can talk to lemons and imagine their comments.
You can take a fucking grip on reality.
I have a family member who is an alcoholic and he has done some silly things but mercifully harmed no one else. The problem is addicts can and do affect the lives of others and it's at that point the State, which is duty bound to protect us all as much from the consequences of those closest to us as well as the actions of malevolent strangers, has to get involved.
What of the fun, what of the therapeutic benefits - be it of alcohol, cannabis, or prescription drugs? There is circumstantial evidence othat antidepressants are linked to mass shootings, undeniable proof that in some circumstances they give some users the 'get up and go' to finally commit suicide. They have of course been made available only because of the 'theraputic benefit' by a 'licensed practitioner'. Yet they have proven effective at relieving misery in many, many more cases. We can't make something illegal just because of unpleasant side effects in a small minority of cases.
Without alcohol - used responsibly and in moderation - I suspect many more lives would be miserable. But the truth is if it were banned, people would manufacture and distribute it anyway, albeit without regulation. Just as they do with cannabis. And therein lies the problem. You can't ban people from doing something they're going to do anyway without a whole host of negative effects which far outweigh the negative effects of the drug itself.
This sits aside from the moral argument that the state should have no part in self-regarding actions. The state should step in, by all means, to stop a drunk from assaulting someone or abusing a child. But does the state have the right to stop a few lads getting drunk together on a friday night, even if it's bad for them? I don't go around telling other people how to live their lives, and certainly don't appreciate other people going around telling me how to live mine...
My dad used to joke about a farmer friend of his who complained every year that this was the worst year ever on the farm, and yet every year managed to buy a new Range Rover ...
Today I got an email from him:
"[When] I started WikiTribune, I listened to advice that we had to be very controlled. We had to have a complex review process. It was beautiful and what we published was of high quality - but we didn't really have genuine community control, and we didn't get very much work done.
So, [we] have undertaken a radical redesign of the site - not just the look but the actual operation. The push is to turn over genuine control to the community, to let people work live without a net. It's about trusting you, and it's about welcoming you.
So please, come and edit. Make some small change today. Click on 'add a new story' and add something that you find interesting. Be neutral. Cite your sources. Let's work together to do something radical.
--Jimbo"
This is either going to be a shining light for accurate unbiased news or a complete mess!
I have swung over time between legalisation and keeping it illegal. At the moment I am against legalisation, unless:
*) The law is strict about the types of cannabis sold; selling stronger types, or other drugs, is stamped on. Cannabis can only be sold through licensed outlets.
*) Driving or using machinery under the influence is strictly illegal, and results in jail time.
*) Ditto smoking in front of children, or in public.
*) Money gained from taxation is used to help users of cannabis and other drugs.
*) Encouraging the use of cannabis as a gateway drug, or selling to people under 18 (21?), results in jail time.
Basically: let people use cannabis if they want, as long as they do not haem wider society.
I do not believe for a moment that legalisation would stop crime; the criminals want to make money, and will just move on to other forms of cannabis and other drugs. However legalisation with rules strictly applied, could be a benefit to society. If the rules are applied.
And that's where I fear it'll fall down.