I do believe in the case of sexual harassment and rape charges, the names should be withheld until a successful conviction.
Why not all crimes?
+1 (a judge could order an exception if it might be essential for public safety or to collect more evidence). It's just media selling papers and public prurience. If someone has been falsely accused of anything we don't need to know the allegation at all and it gives a false reward to the accuser by casting a shadow. If he's been correctly accused, we can wait for the verdict.
You want to have secret trials? Really??
Why not allow the accused the right to waive their right to anonymity?
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a larger state?
Not withstanding that this sounds like a voodoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit if enough people want it, or does your determination to ignore the Brexit vote extend to imposing authoritarianism elsewhere to prevent breakaways?
Plus Hong Kong is both larger than Scotland population wise and with a bigger gdp
For those who subscribe to the Times, I strongly recommend Tim Montgomerie’s article as an exercise in intellectual feebleness. Of course, his call to the wisdom of individual members is one which brought the Conservative party Ian Duncan-Smith exemplary leadership which is disappointly not mentioned.
I do think that newspapers should qualify opinion writers’ articles with a list of their previous opinions so one can judge their accuracy.
Tory members also gave us David Cameron
Who has done far more harm to the Tory party than IDS could dream of
I don't think either of them "dream" of harming the Tory party.
Cameron was faced with a pressure cooker fast building up steam with the voters. Ignoring a referendum as required by Clegg and urged by Miliband could have given you Prime Minister Farage sometime soon.
Prime Minister Farage would surely be worse than holding a referendum to resolve where we would be within Europe - politically, or just geographically.
George Osborne tried to talk Cameron out of the referendum, so it cannot have been all that inevitable. And Nigel Farage in Downing Street is a leap too far.
Cameron wouldn’t have got a majority without his referendum pledge, and even then UKIP got 13% of the vote.
What sunk Cameron was the ‘renegotiation’, and rushing the referendum so that there was no time to make a positive case.
What also sunk Cameron (and the rest of us, whether Remain or Leave) is failing to identify some specific version of Brexit, perhaps by Royal Commission headed by Nigel Farage, to put on the ballot paper. Two years on and a year from Brexit and no-one, least of all the government, has the faintest idea where we will land.
Farage would not have sat on such a commission, and important others would not have served on one with him: any commission would just have ended up giving Farage's view. He is not one for compromise.
Besides, to win leave needed a broader church than just Farage's 'vision' of Brexit. He knows that, would have not sat on any such commission, and would have argued against its findings - because that was the way to get what he wanted: victory.
There was a young man named Farage Who one day got trapped in his garage He campaigned so hard But let down his guard And lost to an electoral barrage
As May prepares to travel to sub Saharan Africa to boost trading links after Brexit, Atiku Abubakar, a Nigerian presidential candidate, claims Brexit can be 'a force for good' by breaking down barriers to Anglo African trade
Indeed for the majority of African countries terms of trade with the UK will worsen with Brexit as EBA will no longer apply.
The single market while prompting tariff free trade within Europe has imposed high tariffs on African exports to it, Nigeria is also one of the fastest growing countries economically in the world and it is important post Brexit UK builds good relations with it
Have you read the EBA agreement? Most of Africa has tarrif free access for exports to us at present. EU tarrif barriers to Africa are a myth. Certain non tarrif barfiers still apply, for example Zambian beef cannot be imported because of Foot and Mouth.
That really got me. I have other things to do today, but can’t walk away from that.
Wow. If anyone finds that bourgeois, unrealistic, sentimental drivel uplifting, they are going down on my little list and first up against the wall when the time comes.
No he doesn’t get everything that’s wrong with all his films, why his films can’t do politics at all, on any level. He has no comprehension how the power of nightmares and hatred and desire drives the political world, the real world.
If he wants to find and appreciate hate, he only needed to look inside his own mothers heart. But he didn’t.
I must say I am surprised at the virulence of your reaction to his comments, so I have now watched the video - he doesn't come across as mawkish, or dismissive of there being corruption or violence in the world and the things that drive that in humanity, he just seems to think that real progress does get made and that there is a preponderance of good people and things over bad people and things despite all the bad things that exist. Despite his in essence defending the sentimentality of his films, his actual comments in the clip do not appear to be particularly sentimental, merely optimistic. Even if he is wrong - and on there being a lot of progress and good news that is rarer to hear than bad he is not - on his general philosophy, it makes a refreshing counter to grim, depressing 'realists' such as I would often count myself.
Edit: I have never seen Love Actually or Four Weddings and a Funeral
Which experience, to be fair to our resident lord of unreason, is likely to prejudice any reasonable being against anything else Curtis might have to say.
Its not what you know, its who you know....in the Labour Party....
However, when it comes to compromising democratic socialist values, the Murray family at least, as long-time members of the Communist Party, have the excuse of not being democratic socialists.
Andrew Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, son of a stockbroker and friend of Seumas Milne since they were in the same faction of the Communist Party, works as a part-time consultant in Jeremy Corbyn’s office, where he shares an office with his daughter Laura, Corbyn’s Head of Stakeholder Relations.
Susan Fiona Dorinthea Michie, whose mother left £52 million in her will, is the ex-wife of Andrew and mother to Laura Murray. She is also an active member of the Communist Party, famously once addressed a party meeting with the opening line “we, the working class.” True to her working-class roots, Michie helped pay her daughter’s salary with a £14,000 donation to the Labour Party in June.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
I find it hard to believe, push comes to shove, that 30% really back armed revolution.
In his official statement, Mr Salmond said he had not been allowed to properly challenge the case against him – “I have not been allowed to see the evidence,” he said. And yet in the same statement he said the complaints were patently ridiculous. So, which is it? How can he say the complaints are ridiculous if he has not seen them? He either knows what the complaints are, or he doesn’t.
Well, if he knew himself to be completely innocent of any such behaviour then he could claim they were ridiculous without knowing the details, I suppose.
What I find interesting is the position of Nicola. She has known and worked with this man for decades and must have a detailed knowledge of any foibles that he might have exhibited. She is taking her role as FM very seriously and playing this by the book. Whilst that is the correct thing to do her lack of character witness support for him is very telling.
David , It seems fairly obvious that they have had a wee party and some snogging has taken place and for some bizzare reason the person has decided to rake it up 6 years later and make out it was unwanted attention. When you read what the Record had as the incident it would have to have been some brain dead moron to have allowed it to be as stated. Fairly obvious to anyone that has ever been to a drunken party I am afraid, some people just cannot get over how stupid they were snogging someone.
Ah. The she was wearing a short skirt and had it coming to her defence.
Far from it , says a lot about your mindset that you came to that conclusion. You think stereotype and imagine she was in a coma for six years rather than it was two adults involved.
No, you’re victim blaming. If it were a Conservative politician involved you’d no doubt be saying something different.
You are just mixed up and biased. You making bold assumptions about what I would or would not think about some other imaginary circumstance is bizarre. His party has nothing to do with it , read the answer , it was two adults , albeit in a semi working capacity, and one party makes some allegations six years later. To me that is bizarre, I would expect a mature adult to stop it in the first place or if serious report it to the police, not turn up 6 years later with some half baked accusations.
As May prepares to travel to sub Saharan Africa to boost trading links after Brexit, Atiku Abubakar, a Nigerian presidential candidate, claims Brexit can be 'a force for good' by breaking down barriers to Anglo African trade
Indeed for the majority of African countries terms of trade with the UK will worsen with Brexit as EBA will no longer apply.
The single market while prompting tariff free trade within Europe has imposed high tariffs on African exports to it, Nigeria is also one of the fastest growing countries economically in the world and it is important post Brexit UK builds good relations with it
Give it another two hundred years and it will be sizeable.
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
Lord of Reason has stirred us up interestingly, and seems partly motivated by just disliking the movies (I think I saw them and they didn't leave much impression). I remember talking to a Greek Communist and espousintg the delights of tolerance democratic debate - I may have even cited the pleasures of PM. He said sadly that he wished that Greece could be like that, but too many terrible things had been done by each side to avoid feeling hatred to their enemies. I understand, but it's not good.
I'm as political as Lord of Reason, I'd think - I've spent most of my adult life primarily trying to make life better for people who seem to me to have shitty elements to their lives, and I've accepted a certain amount of personal sacrifice in the process. But I still think the poroducer is right that the media love to dwell on the grim things and it's not an accurate picture of the delights that most people in Britain and many other countries do feel in everyday existence.
Its not what you know, its who you know....in the Labour Party....
However, when it comes to compromising democratic socialist values, the Murray family at least, as long-time members of the Communist Party, have the excuse of not being democratic socialists.
Andrew Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, son of a stockbroker and friend of Seumas Milne since they were in the same faction of the Communist Party, works as a part-time consultant in Jeremy Corbyn’s office, where he shares an office with his daughter Laura, Corbyn’s Head of Stakeholder Relations.
Susan Fiona Dorinthea Michie, whose mother left £52 million in her will, is the ex-wife of Andrew and mother to Laura Murray. She is also an active member of the Communist Party, famously once addressed a party meeting with the opening line “we, the working class.” True to her working-class roots, Michie helped pay her daughter’s salary with a £14,000 donation to the Labour Party in June.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
They have little to no say in it. As for “liberal democracy”, you are genuinely ignorant if you believe that.
That really got me. I have other things to do today, but can’t walk away from that.
Wow. If anyone finds that bourgeois, unrealistic, sentimental drivel uplifting, they are going down on my little list and first up against the wall when the time comes.
No he doesn’t get everything that’s wrong with all his films, why his films can’t do politics at all, on any level. He has no comprehension how the power of nightmares and hatred and desire drives the political world, the real world.
If he wants to find and appreciate hate, he only needed to look inside his own mothers heart. But he didn’t.
Disagree. I'm with Curtis. You can put me up on your wall.
His films were sentimental unrealistic middle class claptrap
I do believe in the case of sexual harassment and rape charges, the names should be withheld until a successful conviction.
Why not all crimes?
+1 (a judge could order an exception if it might be essential for public safety or to collect more evidence). It's just media selling papers and public prurience. If someone has been falsely accused of anything we don't need to know the allegation at all and it gives a false reward to the accuser by casting a shadow. If he's been correctly accused, we can wait for the verdict.
You want to have secret trials? Really??
Why not allow the accused the right to waive their right to anonymity?
Justice needs to be open and transparent. There are already restrictions on how trials can be reported in the UK. There is no good reason for keeping the name of the defendant anonymous, once they have been charged, nor the names of anyone else involved.
Trying to pretend that things which are happening are not happening by covering them up or not talking about them or by removing them from the historical record (as in the “right to be forgotten”) is utterly babyish, stemming from a belief that nothing bad should ever happen to anyone even when something bad is clearly happening. Rather than acknowledge the latter and try and deal with it (reporting restrictions are a way of balancing the need for open justice vs avoiding prurient commentary) there is a tendency to want to protect everyone even at the price of distorting a very important and valuable principle, which has important real life practical consequences.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a larger state?
Not withstanding that this sounds like a voodoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit if enough people want it, or does your determination to ignore the Brexit vote extend to imposing authoritarianism elsewhere to prevent breakaways?
Plus Hong Kong is both larger than Scotland population wise and with a bigger gdp
Yet you say Scotland should not be allowed to be independent or even vote on it if it wants to.
That really got me. I have other things to do today, but can’t walk away from that.
Wow. If anyone finds that bourgeois, unrealistic, sentimental drivel uplifting, they are going down on my little list and first up against the wall when the time comes.
No he doesn’t get everything that’s wrong with all his films, why his films can’t do politics at all, on any level. He has no comprehension how the power of nightmares and hatred and desire drives the political world, the real world.
If he wants to find and appreciate hate, he only needed to look inside his own mothers heart. But he didn’t.
I must say I am surprised at the virulence of your reaction to his comments, so I have now watched the video - he doesn't come across as mawkish, or dismissive of there being corruption or violence in the world and the things that drive that in humanity, he just seems to think that real progress does get made and that there is a preponderance of good people and things over bad people and things despite all the bad things that exist. Despite his in essence defending the sentimentality of his films, his actual comments in the clip do not appear to be particularly sentimental, merely optimistic.
Edit: I have never seen Love Actually or Four Weddings and a Funeral
Love, actually is set in a London of love, and forgiveness, not one where fear and horror of crime nags away causing depression. Whitewash. Think Amelie’s Paris minus black faces. (Oh Jesus, the same avatars are going to tell me they enjoyed and have no problem with that film as well)
Argh - I had written, of course, a lengthy response to this, which I accidentally erased by somehow going back on the browser. It was a great one too (I hoped).
In short, I hated Amelie, but I don't see that because Curtis chooses to make films focusing on the lighter side of things is unreasonable, since others make films which are unrealistically grim, as anything which holds one note and does not acknowledge the lighter side of things is just as unrealistic as something which shows no dark side, so his may well be a counterpoint to that sort of dark fare, which in extreme cases is just misery porn inspiring darkness induced apathy.
Mr. kle4, never seen Watership Down, but have heard it's pretty brutal.
It is fantastic (the animation is not world beating, but works very well for the style of story).
I believe there have been tv series' based on it, which I cannot believe are as brutal, in a much more cutesy style, but hilariously even the original movie had some posters which look cutesy.
In fact, I seem to recall they are making a new version. The book is one of my favourites, it has stuck with me ever since I read it as a child.
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
Singapore of course broke away from Malaysia.
Malaysia didn’t have the People’s Liberation Army and the iron will of the Chinese Communist Party
You make it sound as though Malaysia wanted Singapore to remain part of it. Here's some facts:
"Singapore became part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963 following a merger with Malaya, North Borneo, and Sarawak.
.....
Seeing no alternative to avoid further bloodshed, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to expel Singapore from the federation. The Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0, with all Singaporean MPs boycotting the vote, in favour of the expulsion on 9 August 1965. On that day, a tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced on a televised press conference that Singapore was a sovereign, independent nation. In a widely remembered quote, he uttered that: "For me, it would be a moment of anguish. I mean for me, it is a moment of anguish because all my life….you see the whole of my adult life…. I have believed in Merger and the unity of the two territories. You know it's a people connected by geography, economics, and ties of kinship... ."[5] The new state became the Republic of Singapore."
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
Because they’ve almost all had their photo taken with a certain woman?
Conservative party associations are reporting a surge in members who have joined in the wake of Theresa May’s Chequers deal which has proved unpopular with the grassroots.
The increase in membership will raise concerns that the party is at risk from a ‘blue Momentum-style’ takeover among supporters furious with the deal which keeps Britain closely tied to the European Union after Brexit.
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
Because they’ve almost all had their photo taken with a certain woman?
So take the hit and do it anyway. "When the facts change, ..." etc.
Those trends (which aren't very rigorously analysed in that article).
Perhaps. I’d back Ian Warren on this kind of stuff with my hard-earned money. Certainly the results in 2017 show a string of London exurbs swinging sharply to Labour.
But sea
Prompted by a comment from Andy Cooke, I started looking into the way things have changed since August 1988 (when polls were giving fairly similar results to today). Plugging the results of the 2017 election into the boundaries for 1987 gives similar results to today's. Conservative 327, Labour 274, SNP 27, Lib Dems 2, Others 3, Northern Ireland 17. Assume the Lib Dems would actually have done a bit better in terms of seats, and the results are even more similar to today's.
But, beneath the surface, there have been big changes. The Conservatives would have lost 65 seats that they would have held in 1987, with a 2.5% lead, but would have gained 34. Among the new seats that have been created, the Conservatives enjoy a net gain of 21.
The impact of people moving out of big cities is mixed. They can shift some seats leftwards, but a growing population in the hinterland creates more seats in those areas, and reduces the number in the cities, favouring the Conservatives. Also, people who move out of cities can change their political outlook - as we've seen with London overspill seats in Hertfordshire and Essex. If the Conservatives were 2.5% ahead, Labour would have won Basildon in 1987, but would not come close now.
The results we see today were (mostly) predictable thirty years ago. White working class seats were trending Conservative. Middle class urban seats, and university seats, were trending Labour. Merseyside was moving left at a rate of knots, and has moved even further left. The two big exceptions are Greater London and Scotland. Greater London looked to moving right, and Scotland moving Left. From 1992 onwards, Greater London has moved left, whereas Scotland has suddenly shifted Right.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
Singapore of course broke away from Malaysia.
Malaysia didn’t have the People’s Liberation Army and the iron will of the Chinese Communist Party
You make it sound as though Malaysia wanted Singapore to remain part of it. Here's some facts:
"Singapore became part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963 following a merger with Malaya, North Borneo, and Sarawak.
.....
Seeing no alternative to avoid further bloodshed, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to expel Singapore from the federation. The Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0, with all Singaporean MPs boycotting the vote, in favour of the expulsion on 9 August 1965. On that day, a tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced on a televised press conference that Singapore was a sovereign, independent nation. In a widely remembered quote, he uttered that: "For me, it would be a moment of anguish. I mean for me, it is a moment of anguish because all my life….you see the whole of my adult life…. I have believed in Merger and the unity of the two territories. You know it's a people connected by geography, economics, and ties of kinship... ."[5] The new state became the Republic of Singapore."
I stand corrected. Still, China will never let any part of what they consider their territory to declare independence. The loss of face would be unacceptable.
George Osborne tried to talk Cameron out of the referendum, so it cannot have been all that inevitable. And Nigel Farage in Downing Street is a leap too far.
Cameron wouldn’t have got a majority without his referendum pledge, and even then UKIP got 13% of the vote.
What sunk Cameron was the ‘renegotiation’, and rushing the referendum so that there was no time to make a positive case.
What also sunk Cameron (and the rest of us, whether Remain or Leave) is failing to identify some specific version of Brexit, perhaps by Royal Commission headed by Nigel Farage, to put on the ballot paper. Two years on and a year from Brexit and no-one, least of all the government, has the faintest idea where we will land.
Farage would not have sat on such a commission, and important others would not have served on one with him: any commission would just have ended up giving Farage's view. He is not one for compromise.
Besides, to win leave needed a broader church than just Farage's 'vision' of Brexit. He knows that, would have not sat on any such commission, and would have argued against its findings - because that was the way to get what he wanted: victory.
It does not really matter. The main point is Cameron should have set up a commission to put a specific Brexit option on the ballot paper, rather than blank slate Brexit.
A more subtle point which I think is still overlooked is that even now, despite years and in some cases decades of campaigning on this very issue, even the public faces of Brexit have no shared, agreed vision of what Brexit ought to look like.
This is important when considering bets on the next prime minister for instance. It is folly to assume that ERG members will vote as a block for Boris or anyone else: they are as divided on Brexit as the rest of us.
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
It is absolutely criminal but unfortunately I doubt there is much political capital in it sadly.
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
That really got me. I have other things to do today, but can’t walk away from that.
Wow. If anyone finds that bourgeois, unrealistic, sentimental drivel uplifting, they are going down on my little list and first up against the wall when the time comes.
No he doesn’t get everything that’s wrong with all his films, why his films can’t do politics at all, on any level. He has no comprehension how the power of nightmares and hatred and desire drives the political world, the real world.
If he wants to find and appreciate hate, he only needed to look inside his own mothers heart. But he didn’t.
Disagree. I'm with Curtis. You can put me up on your wall.
Pleasure.
Fluffball. Cuddles. Gandalf. The three cats from next door shitting on my borage are already on the list, you’ll be at home with them.
Conservative party associations are reporting a surge in members who have joined in the wake of Theresa May’s Chequers deal which has proved unpopular with the grassroots.
The increase in membership will raise concerns that the party is at risk from a ‘blue Momentum-style’ takeover among supporters furious with the deal which keeps Britain closely tied to the European Union after Brexit.
I do believe in the case of sexual harassment and rape charges, the names should be withheld until a successful conviction.
Why not all crimes?
+1 (a judge could order an exception if it might be essential for public safety or to collect more evidence). It's just media selling papers and public prurience. If someone has been falsely accused of anything we don't need to know the allegation at all and it gives a false reward to the accuser by casting a shadow. If he's been correctly accused, we can wait for the verdict.
You want to have secret trials? Really??
Why not allow the accused the right to waive their right to anonymity?
Justice needs to be open and transparent. There are already restrictions on how trials can be reported in the UK. There is no good reason for keeping the name of the defendant anonymous, once they have been charged, nor the names of anyone else involved.
Trying to pretend that things which are happening are not happening by covering them up or not talking about them or by removing them from the historical record (as in the “right to be forgotten”) is utterly babyish, stemming from a belief that nothing bad should ever happen to anyone even when something bad is clearly happening. Rather than acknowledge the latter and try and deal with it (reporting restrictions are a way of balancing the need for open justice vs avoiding prurient commentary) there is a tendency to want to protect everyone even at the price of distorting a very important and valuable principle, which has important real life practical consequences.
Society really needs to grow up sometimes.
I was imprecise. I meant before charge. After charge then the accused should be named. I also have some concerns about cases where accusers remain anonymous after the defendant is found not guilty, but that's yet another issue.
I do believe in the case of sexual harassment and rape charges, the names should be withheld until a successful conviction.
Why not all crimes?
+1 (a judge could order an exception if it might be essential for public safety or to collect more evidence). It's just media selling papers and public prurience. If someone has been falsely accused of anything we don't need to know the allegation at all and it gives a false reward to the accuser by casting a shadow. If he's been correctly accused, we can wait for the verdict.
You want to have secret trials? Really??
Why not allow the accused the right to waive their right to anonymity?
Justice needs to be open and transparent. There are already restrictions on how trials can be reported in the UK. There is no good reason for keeping the name of the defendant anonymous, once they have been charged, nor the names of anyone else involved.
Trying to pretend that things which are happening are not happening by covering them up or not talking about them or by removing them from the historical record (as in the “right to be forgotten”) is utterly babyish, stemming from a belief that nothing bad should ever happen to anyone even when something bad is clearly happening. Rather than acknowledge the latter and try and deal with it (reporting restrictions are a way of balancing the need for open justice vs avoiding prurient commentary) there is a tendency to want to protect everyone even at the price of distorting a very important and valuable principle, which has important real life practical consequences.
Society really needs to grow up sometimes.
There used to be a theological view that talking about sins somehow legitimised sins, but all that means is that sins get swept under the carpet.
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
It is absolutely criminal but unfortunately I doubt there is much political capital in it sadly.
Really? Corbynite Labour in particular could demolish at a swoop the suggestion that only one international injustice matters to them. And the Rohingya are majority muslim.
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
Lord of Reason has stirred us up interestingly, and seems partly motivated by just disliking the movies (I think I saw them and they didn't leave much impression). I remember talking to a Greek Communist and espousintg the delights of tolerance democratic debate - I may have even cited the pleasures of PM. He said sadly that he wished that Greece could be like that, but too many terrible things had been done by each side to avoid feeling hatred to their enemies. I understand, but it's not good.
I'm as political as Lord of Reason, I'd think - I've spent most of my adult life primarily trying to make life better for people who seem to me to have shitty elements to their lives, and I've accepted a certain amount of personal sacrifice in the process. But I still think the poroducer is right that the media love to dwell on the grim things and it's not an accurate picture of the delights that most people in Britain and many other countries do feel in everyday existence.
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
It is absolutely criminal but unfortunately I doubt there is much political capital in it sadly.
Really? Corbynite Labour in particular could demolish at a swoop the suggestion that only one international injustice matters to them. And the Rohingya are majority muslim.
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
It is very difficult indeed to have any sort of reporting of a trial if the defendant’s name is not known. So you end up in practice with secret trials, where a guessing game goes on as to who the trial is about. Rather than have open justice you end up having a position where those in the know have information and others don’t, which is inimical IMO to having an open, transparent justice system. You are more likely to have gossip and rumour and innuendo spreading. It may also affect the progress of the trial because new evidence, both for the prosecution and the defence, may come to light. It makes reporting of matters which are in the public domain impossible so that the ramifications go far beyond reporting of a trial.
There are already strict rules on how a trial is reported. The way to deal with this is to strengthen those laws and enforce them properly not retreat into a sentimental view that the feelings of the defendant should override other more important considerations. And the problems are not just - or even primarily - with the press. It is often the police who leak confidential information, entirely improperly. Action to deal with that is badly needed.
If we want to help defendants, we could stop the destruction of the legal aid system and provide some effective remedy for those defendants who end up seriously out of pocket, even when found not to be guilty.
I do believe in the case of sexual harassment and rape charges, the names should be withheld until a successful conviction.
Why not all crimes?
+1 (a judge could order an exception if it might be essential for public safety or to collect more evidence). It's just media selling papers and public prurience. If someone has been falsely accused of anything we don't need to know the allegation at all and it gives a false reward to the accuser by casting a shadow. If he's been correctly accused, we can wait for the verdict.
You want to have secret trials? Really??
Why not allow the accused the right to waive their right to anonymity?
Justice needs to be open and transparent. There are already restrictions on how trials can be reported in the UK. There is no good reason for keeping the name of the defendant anonymous, once they have been charged, nor the names of anyone else involved.
Trying to pretend that things which are happening are not happening by covering them up or not talking about them or by removing them from the historical record (as in the “right to be forgotten”) is utterly babyish, stemming from a belief that nothing bad should ever happen to anyone even when something bad is clearly happening. Rather than acknowledge the latter and try and deal with it (reporting restrictions are a way of balancing the need for open justice vs avoiding prurient commentary) there is a tendency to want to protect everyone even at the price of distorting a very important and valuable principle, which has important real life practical consequences.
Society really needs to grow up sometimes.
I was imprecise. I meant before charge. After charge then the accused should be named. I also have some concerns about cases where accusers remain anonymous after the defendant is found not guilty, but that's yet another issue.
Before charge, I agree there is a better case for anonymity. Or, rather, that the police should be much more scrupulous about what they release into the public domain. But there may be some cases where it may be necessary to share the name of the person under investigation in order to get relevant evidence.
There’s no single water cooler any more, just a bubbling of separate springs, all with common views congregating separately.
I agree. Every now and again something will cause those water coolers to burst their banks and spread a general consensus but it is, if anything, increasingly rare whilst the self reinforcing echo chambers push people to ever more extreme views.
The current group in charge, Leavers, have shown not the slightest inclination to persuade their defeated opponents to join them or acknowledge their concerns. One wonders how they think a divided country is going to prosper while following this direction but they don’t seem to care about that.
I really don't see it like that. What we actually have in charge are remainers who accept the decision of the referendum but who also seek to mitigate the consequences. So we have the Chequers proposal which many leavers see as not much short of surrender to the extent that some left the government.
This consta charge'......
The question is whether May's dirty compromise is rejected by both sides, in which event we will have chaos, or accepted by a sufficient majority that it can be delivered. It is not only her future that hangs on the answer to that.
Are there any 'clean' compromises?
The Tory party usually gets into serious trouble when it falls pray to absolutists not pragmatists.
Agreed.
Those of us who know pragmatism is a dirty word, from which no good can come, look down on people like you.
If I might take a pragmatic approach, sometimes compromise is necessary to get some of what you want rather than nothing as you shoot for everything and fail as you lack sufficient support. Clearly there will be times when a pragmatic approach is not suitable depending on what compromises are required, as you have to be pragmatic about pragmatism, and it is why people have red lines which they will not compromises beyond as it makes their own stance meaningless, but if you cannot get everything you want, and there is a lesser option you can get, it is surely not inherently leading to 'no good' to go for that as the next best thing.
“My instinct was to stand firm against the Nazi advance, but decided to compromise becuase how much death and destruction digging my heels in would cause, so I contacted the Italian ambassador...”
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
It is very difficult indeed to have any sort of reporting of a trial if the defendant’s name is not known. So you end up in practice with secret trials, where a guessing game goes on as to who the trial is about. Rather than have open justice you end up having a position where those in the know have information and others don’t, which is inimical IMO to having an open, transparent justice system. You are more likely to have gossip and rumour and innuendo spreading. It may also affect the progress of the trial because new evidence, both for the prosecution and the defence, may come to light. It makes reporting of matters which are in the public domain impossible so that the ramifications go far beyond reporting of a trial.
There are already strict rules on how a trial is reported. The way to deal with this is to strengthen those laws and enforce them properly not retreat into a sentimental view that the feelings of the defendant should override other more important considerations. And the problems are not just - or even primarily - with the press. It is often the police who leak confidential information, entirely improperly. Action to deal with that is badly needed.
If we want to help defendants, we could stop the destruction of the legal aid system and provide some effective remedy for those defendants who end up seriously out of pocket, even when found not to be guilty.
Messed up blockquotes. The last 3 paragraphs are by me not by @NickPalmer
“My instinct was to stand firm against the Nazi advance, but decided to compromise becuase how much death and destruction digging my heels in would cause, so I contacted the Italian ambassador...”
You are being deliberately silly - you have declared an absolute position that pragmatism is something from 'which no good can come', and I've suggested sometimes it is a good thing, I certainly didn't suggest it is always the thing to do, for instance in the face of the Nazi advance. In fact I very specifically said it is not suitable to compromise sometimes. So either you cannot read, or you are trying to win some award for most irrelevant Godwinning.
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
Very sensible. You get far better value outside London.
Well yes. However - and I confess I comment on this without reading the article - but my understanding of the last ten years of house prices is that everywhere has done better than London. So you can't really 'use the profits' made in the capital as the amount of house you can buy in the North and Midlands with your London house has declined since 2008. If you'd bought in 1997 and sold in 2007, you could have 'used the profits'.
On the subject of anonymity with regards to certain offences and trials, I do think the time for a review of the law is absolutely necessary.
The world has changed radically as to how we can gather information about events in the past. The internet has permanently changed how our histories are stored.
All it takes is a few clicks to find out what you think you want to know about a person. And that can taint that person's chances of getting a job, a home, whatever. Sometimes completely wrongly because of name confusion or wrong reporting or because you find the page that says they were charged and never happen across the report of their being found guilty.
I don't know what the solution is - that is for others to determine - but we need to offer everyone involved in the criminal justice system some protections to avoid future harm.
Making the shift to post-conviction reporting of certain crimes has the most appeal to me as it means that only the guilty are revealed. But I also see the risks in that.
Post-charge reporting can aid in gathering evidence. But not all charges end up in court for whatever reason and so it is much harder for the accused in that situation to see that situation reported in the media to the same extent as their original charging.
The internet has been great for many, many things. But in the area of criminal justice, it has rather muddied some waters.
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
Very sensible. You get far better value outside London.
Well yes. However - and I confess I comment on this without reading the article - but my understanding of the last ten years of house prices is that everywhere has done better than London. So you can't really 'use the profits' made in the capital as the amount of house you can buy in the North and Midlands with your London house has declined since 2008. If you'd bought in 1997 and sold in 2007, you could have 'used the profits'.
Not at all. Prices have risen on average by about 65% in London, since 2007, but hardly budged in most of the rest of the country.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a larger state?
Not withstanding that this sounds like a voodoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit if enough people want it, or does your determination to ignore the Brexit vote extend to imposing authoritarianism elsewhere to prevent breakaways?
Plus Hong Kong is both larger than Scotland population wise and with a bigger gdp
Yet you say Scotland should not be allowed to be independent or even vote on it if it wants to.
Scotland voted 55% for the Union in 2014 and 63% for Unionist parties in 2017 after the SNP pushed indyref2 following the Brexit vote.
Of course we could take the Chinese and Spanish way of dealing with nationalists and declare martial law in Scotland and suspend Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon and SNP ministers and send tanks, troops, special forces and the police to Scotland but I have not advocated that
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
It is very difficult indeed to have any sort of reporting of a trial if the defendant’s name is not known. So you end up in practice with secret trials, where a guessing game goes on as to who the trial is about. Rather than have open justice you end up having a position where those in the know have information and others don’t, which is inimical IMO to having an open, transparent justice system. You are more likely to have gossip and rumour and innuendo spreading. It may also affect the progress of the trial because new evidence, both for the prosecution and the defence, may come to light. It makes reporting of matters which are in the public domain impossible so that the ramifications go far beyond reporting of a trial.
There are already strict rules on how a trial is reported. The way to deal with this is to strengthen those laws and enforce them properly not retreat into a sentimental view that the feelings of the defendant should override other more important considerations. And the problems are not just - or even primarily - with the press. It is often the police who leak confidential information, entirely improperly. Action to deal with that is badly needed.
If we want to help defendants, we could stop the destruction of the legal aid system and provide some effective remedy for those defendants who end up seriously out of pocket, even when found not to be guilty.
Messed up blockquotes. The last 3 paragraphs are by me not by @NickPalmer
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
They have little to no say in it. As for “liberal democracy”, you are genuinely ignorant if you believe that.
The Legislative Council of Hong Kong is far more democratic than other areas of China, even if less so than before the handover
“My instinct was to stand firm against the Nazi advance, but decided to compromise becuase how much death and destruction digging my heels in would cause, so I contacted the Italian ambassador...”
You are being deliberately silly - you have declared an absolute position that pragmatism is something from 'which no good can come', and I've suggested sometimes it is a good thing, I certainly didn't suggest it is always the thing to do, for instance in the face of the Nazi advance. In fact I very specifically said it is not suitable to compromise sometimes. So either you cannot read, or you are trying to win some award for most irrelevant Godwinning.
Added to which, at the moment we are not facing a Nazi advance. We just have Brexit to deal with, and we'd be getting a lot further with it if we opted for pragmatism over principle.
It is very difficult indeed to have any sort of reporting of a trial if the defendant’s name is not known. So you end up in practice with secret trials, where a guessing game goes on as to who the trial is about. Rather than have open justice you end up having a position where those in the know have information and others don’t, which is inimical IMO to having an open, transparent justice system. You are more likely to have gossip and rumour and innuendo spreading. It may also affect the progress of the trial because new evidence, both for the prosecution and the defence, may come to light. It makes reporting of matters which are in the public domain impossible so that the ramifications go far beyond reporting of a trial.
There are already strict rules on how a trial is reported. The way to deal with this is to strengthen those laws and enforce them properly not retreat into a sentimental view that the feelings of the defendant should override other more important considerations. And the problems are not just - or even primarily - with the press. It is often the police who leak confidential information, entirely improperly. Action to deal with that is badly needed.
If we want to help defendants, we could stop the destruction of the legal aid system and provide some effective remedy for those defendants who end up seriously out of pocket, even when found not to be guilty.
Edited the blockquotes to make sense, I think . You're assuming that the defendant kis well-known, aren't you? I'm assuming that it's someone nobody except acquaintances and colleagues has ever heard of, which must be the case 99% of the time. If the Mail reports that Joe Bloggs has been accused of something horrible, all Bloggs's friends may never look at him in the same way again, even if the accusations are entirely false. The rest of us read about the unknown Bloggs and shake our heads over his depravity, but actually we could "enjoy" (or whatever it is that makes us read this stuff, if we do) the reports just as much if it said X.
Would you favour disclosing the names of juvenile defendants, on the same basis? If not, what's the difference?
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
Very sensible. You get far better value outside London.
Well yes. However - and I confess I comment on this without reading the article - but my understanding of the last ten years of house prices is that everywhere has done better than London. So you can't really 'use the profits' made in the capital as the amount of house you can buy in the North and Midlands with your London house has declined since 2008. If you'd bought in 1997 and sold in 2007, you could have 'used the profits'.
Not at all. Prices have risen on average by about 65% in London, since 2007, but hardly budged in most of the rest of the country.
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
No surprise, as the article points out you can buy a detached family home in the Midlands for the price of a 2 bedroom flat in London if you sell the latter
On the subject of anonymity with regards to certain offences and trials, I do think the time for a review of the law is absolutely necessary.
The world has changed radically as to how we can gather information about events in the past. The internet has permanently changed how our histories are stored.
All it takes is a few clicks to find out what you think you want to know about a person. And that can taint that person's chances of getting a job, a home, whatever. Sometimes completely wrongly because of name confusion or wrong reporting or because you find the page that says they were charged and never happen across the report of their being found guilty.
I don't know what the solution is - that is for others to determine - but we need to offer everyone involved in the criminal justice system some protections to avoid future harm.
Making the shift to post-conviction reporting of certain crimes has the most appeal to me as it means that only the guilty are revealed. But I also see the risks in that.
The internet has been great for many, many things. But in the area of criminal justice, it has rather muddied some waters.
In my experience, the risks are not of employers finding out the wrong information about a person but rather the opposite - they tend to be less than diligent in their pre-employment checks and due diligence and, partly because of box-ticking and failure to follow up inconsistencies, they do not find out what is available and relevant. Reducing the level of information available will harm rather than aid that process.
Years ago, we were told by an employee that a fellow employee was then on trial for running a brothel. This had been reported in the local paper. Needless to say the employee in question had not revealed this, both in breach of company policy and his duty of integrity. Had this not been reported we would never have found out. And we would have continued to employ someone who had displayed a lack of integrity and honesty, with the consequent risk to clients, his colleagues and the bank.
But, hey, his feelings would have been protected.....
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
I don’t think there’s much evidence that the British public (or that of any European country) is itching to reward a political party that promises to speak for and spend political and financial capital on Muslim refugees.
On the subject of anonymity with regards to certain offences and trials, I do think the time for a review of the law is absolutely necessary.
The world has changed radically as to how we can gather information about events in the past. The internet has permanently changed how our histories are stored.
All it takes is a few clicks to find out what you think you want to know about a person. And that can taint that person's chances of getting a job, a home, whatever. Sometimes completely wrongly because of name confusion or wrong reporting or because you find the page that says they were charged and never happen across the report of their being found guilty.
I don't know what the solution is - that is for others to determine - but we need to offer everyone involved in the criminal justice system some protections to avoid future harm.
Making the shift to post-conviction reporting of certain crimes has the most appeal to me as it means that only the guilty are revealed. But I also see the risks in that.
The internet has been great for many, many things. But in the area of criminal justice, it has rather muddied some waters.
In my experience, the risks are not of employers finding out the wrong information about a person but rather the opposite - they tend to be less than diligent in their pre-employment checks and due diligence and, partly because of box-ticking and failure to follow up inconsistencies, they do not find out what is available and relevant. Reducing the level of information available will harm rather than aid that process.
Years ago, we were told by an employee that a fellow employee was then on trial for running a brothel. This had been reported in the local paper. Needless to say the employee in question had not revealed this, both in breach of company policy and his duty of integrity. Had this not been reported we would never have found out. And we would have continued to employ someone who had displayed a lack of integrity and honesty, with the consequent risk to clients, his colleagues and the bank.
But, hey, his feelings would have been protected.....
This isn't about feelings being protected. It is about ensuring that the right information gets into the public domain at the right time.
If it were possible to ensure all pre-trial media reports were automatically updated with the eventual conviction/acquittal, that would be something - as all the salient details would be accessible at all times. But that isn't a practical solution.
It is human nature to believe 'there is no smoke without fire' - and I don't see that changing. We certainly can't legislate to stop it.
But at the moment, the balance isn't right for all cases.
There is an absolute MOUNTAIN of free political capital available to any one of Corbyn Labour, anti-Corbyn Labour and the Government by taking a high profile pro Rohingya stance this (quiet, news-free) morning. Why is nobody doing it?
I don’t think there’s much evidence that the British public (or that of any European country) is itching to reward a political party that promises to speak for and spend political and financial capital on Muslim refugees.
I also think that the Rohingya are universally thought to be badly treated by the Burmese military. No Western country is backing the oppressor there. Israel-Palestine however is a dispute where many choose one side or the other, so is viciously partisan.
Edited the blockquotes to make sense, I think . You're assuming that the defendant kis well-known, aren't you? I'm assuming that it's someone nobody except acquaintances and colleagues has ever heard of, which must be the case 99% of the time. If the Mail reports that Joe Bloggs has been accused of something horrible, all Bloggs's friends may never look at him in the same way again, even if the accusations are entirely false. The rest of us read about the unknown Bloggs and shake our heads over his depravity, but actually we could "enjoy" (or whatever it is that makes us read this stuff, if we do) the reports just as much if it said X.
Would you favour disclosing the names of juvenile defendants, on the same basis? If not, what's the difference?
There is a case for treating children differently - precisely because they are children. But even then we have disclosed the names eg the killers of James Bulger.
We cannot legislate against Jo Bloggs’ friends thinking that an innocent man is not innocent. And they may well still think that even if his name is not in the Mail because it will be practically impossible to stop his name becoming known - but informally and in a way in which even the existing protections of the Contempt of Court laws may not be available. So you do not prevent the harm you are seeking to avoid but may make it worse and do damage a very important part of our justice system.
Once you are charged you are involved in a public process. You are no longer a private citizen. We long ago moved away, for very good reasons, from private justice. That has implications for everyone involved in the process: defendants, witnesses, investigators, everyone. I have been in two of those categories. You lose some element of privacy. But that is because it is necessary to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. We can do what we can to mitigate some of the effects where we can but not, IMO, at the expense of that very important principle, which is for the benefit of us all. The feelings of one individual do not override these other considerations.
On the subject of anonymity with regards to certain offences and trials, I do think the time for a review of the law is absolutely necessary.
The world has changed radically as to how we can gather information about events in the past. The internet has permanently changed how our histories are stored.
All it takes is a few clicks to find out what you think you want to know about a person. And that can taint that person's chances of getting a job, a home, whatever. Sometimes completely wrongly because of name confusion or wrong reporting or because you find the page that says they were charged and never happen across the report of their being found guilty.
I don't know what the solution is - that is for others to determine - but we need to offer everyone involved in the criminal justice system some protections to avoid future harm.
Making the shift to post-conviction reporting of certain crimes has the most appeal to me as it means that only the guilty are revealed. But I also see the risks in that.
The internet has been great for many, many things. But in the area of criminal justice, it has rather muddied some waters.
In my experience, the risks are not of employers finding out the wrong information about a person but rather the opposite - they tend to be less than diligent in their pre-employment checks and due diligence and, partly because of box-ticking and failure to follow up inconsistencies, they do not find out what is available and relevant. Reducing the level of information available will harm rather than aid that process.
Years ago, we were told by an employee that a fellow employee was then on trial for running a brothel. This had been reported in the local paper. Needless to say the employee in question had not revealed this, both in breach of company policy and his duty of integrity. Had this not been reported we would never have found out. And we would have continued to employ someone who had displayed a lack of integrity and honesty, with the consequent risk to clients, his colleagues and the bank.
But, hey, his feelings would have been protected.....
You make it sound like running a brothel is a bad thing.
On the subject of anonymity with regards to certain offences and trials, I do think the time for a review of the law is absolutely necessary.
The world has changed radically as to how we can gather information about events in the past. The internet has permanently changed how our histories are stored.
All it takes is a few clicks to find out what you think you want to know about a person. And that can taint that person's chances of getting a job, a home, whatever. Sometimes completely wrongly because of name confusion or wrong reporting or because you find the page that says they were charged and never happen across the report of their being found guilty.
I don't know what the solution is - that is for others to determine - but we need to offer everyone involved in the criminal justice system some protections to avoid future harm.
Making the shift to post-conviction reporting of certain crimes has the most appeal to me as it means that only the guilty are revealed. But I also see the risks in that.
The internet has been great for many, many things. But in the area of criminal justice, it has rather muddied some waters.
In my experience, the risks are not of employers finding out the wrong information about a person but rather the opposite - they tend to be less than diligent in their pre-employment checks and due diligence and, partly because of box-ticking and failure to follow up inconsistencies, they do not find out what is available and relevant. Reducing the level of information available will harm rather than aid that process.
Years ago, we were told by an employee that a fellow employee was then on trial for running a brothel. This had been reported in the local paper. Needless to say the employee in question had not revealed this, both in breach of company policy and his duty of integrity. Had this not been reported we would never have found out. And we would have continued to employ someone who had displayed a lack of integrity and honesty, with the consequent risk to clients, his colleagues and the bank.
But, hey, his feelings would have been protected.....
You make it sound like running a brothel is a bad thing.
I have - for a financial investigator - had to spend rather more time than I might have liked investigating the running and financing of brothels. All jokes aside, a deeply deeply unpleasant business.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a larger state?
Not withstanding that this sounds like a voodoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit if enough people want it, or does your determination to ignore the Brexit vote extend to imposing authoritarianism elsewhere to prevent breakaways?
Plus Hong Kong is both larger than Scotland population wise and with a bigger gdp
Yet you say Scotland should not be allowed to be independent or even vote on it if it wants to.
Scotland voted 55% for the Union in 2014 and 63% for Unionist parties in 2017 after the SNP pushed indyref2 following the Brexit vote.
Of course we could take the Chinese and Spanish way of dealing with nationalists and declare martial law in Scotland and suspend Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon and SNP ministers and send tanks, troops, special forces and the police to Scotland but I have not advocated that
Conflating voting on different topics does not cut it , not all Labour , Tory , LDems, Greens etc are against Independence.
No he doesn’t get everything that’s wrong with all his films, why his films can’t do politics at all, on any level. He has no comprehension how the power of nightmares and hatred and desire drives the political world, the real world.
I
I must say I am surprised at the virulence of your reaction to his comments, so I have now watched the video - he doesn't come across as mawkish, or dismissive of there being corruption or violence in the world and the things that drive that in humanity, he just seems to think that real progress does get made and that there is a preponderance of good people and things over bad people and things despite all the bad things that exist. Despite his in essence defending the sentimentality of his films, his actual comments in the clip do not appear to be particularly sentimental, merely optimistic.
Edit: I have never seen Love Actually
Love, actually is set in a London of love, and forgiveness, not one where fear and horror of crime nags away causing depression. Whitewash
I don't see that because Curtis chooses to make films focusing on the lighter side of things is unreasonable, since others make films which are unrealistically grim, as anything which holds one note and does not acknowledge the lighter side of things is just as unrealistic as something which shows no dark side, so his may well be a counterpoint to that sort of dark fare, which in extreme cases is just misery porn inspiring darkness induced apathy.
No. It’s not light relief versus miserly porn. This is not the battle line. It’s peddling fake. The air brushing. Love is either a fleeting confusion of desire, or the difficulties of change. If we really loved those closest to us we wouldn’t hurt them so often. In reality We are units that do nothing but desire, fear and hate, alive and confused in a dangerous universe, this is the basis of all our political interactions. And along comes something that ignores all of that, peddling upbeat fantasy as though it was real.
I have criticised other examples, I should forward one that fits my argument. Rather than the death spiral of Austen, Shakespeare, endless vanity fair remakes, if film or TV would dramatise something like Lud In The Mist for example, you would appreciate my point. An underpinning of political reality doesn’t have to be a Loachian misery, as Lud In The Mist proves, it can sound a note we don’t forget and may have missed about ourselves and society, whilst diverting and entertaining us at the same time.
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
The alternatives are to accept mainland rule, knuckle down and hope the mainland eventually reforms, or leave.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
It is however part of China, with Chinese sovereignty. The time for independence has gone, if it were ever viable as such.
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
It really isn't up to them, that suggests they have any way of making that choice if they want (which I had thought they still did not, despite that poll).
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Go away and learn about one nation PRC politics before giving your opinion on something where you’re just advertising screaming ignorance.
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a larger state?
Not withstanding that this sounds like a voodoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit population wise and with a bigger gdp
Yet you say Scotland should not be allowed to be independent or even vote on it if it wants to.
Scotland voted 55% for the Union in 2014 and 63% for Unionist parties in 2017 after the SNP pushed indyref2 following the Brexit vote.
Of course we could take the Chinese and Spanish way of dealing with nationalists and declare martial law in Scotland and suspend Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon and SNP ministers and send tanks, troops, special forces and the police to Scotland but I have not advocated that
Conflating voting on different topics does not cut it , not all Labour , Tory , LDems, Greens etc are against Independence.
A majority of Tory, Labour and LD voters are and combined those parties got a 63% voteshare at the 2017 general election
No he doesn’t get everything that’s wrong with all his films, why his films can’t do politics at all, on any level. He has no comprehension how the power of nightmares and hatred and desire drives the political world, the real world.
I
I must say I am Edit: I have never seen Love Actually
Love, actually is set in a London of love, and forgiveness, not one where fear and horror of crime nags away causing depression. Whitewash
I don't see that because Curtis chooses to make films focusing on the lighter side of things is unreasonable, since others make films which are unrealistically grim, as anything which holds one note and does not acknowledge the lighter side of things is just as unrealistic as something which shows no dark side, so his may well be a counterpoint to that sort of dark fare, which in extreme cases is just misery porn inspiring darkness induced apathy.
No. It’s not light relief versus miserly porn. This is not the battle line. It’s peddling fake. The air brushing. Love is either a fleeting confusion of desire, or the difficulties of change. If we really loved those closest to us we wouldn’t hurt them so often. In reality We are units that do nothing but desire, fear and hate, alive and confused in a dangerous universe, this is the basis of all our political interactions. And along comes something that ignores all of that, peddling upbeat fantasy as though it was real.
I have criticised other examples, I should forward one that fits my argument. Rather than the death spiral of Austen, Shakespeare, endless vanity fair remakes, if film or TV would dramatise something like Lud In The Mist for example, you would appreciate my point. An underpinning of political reality doesn’t have to be a Loachian misery, as Lud In The Mist proves, it can sound a note we don’t forget and may have missed about ourselves and society, whilst diverting and entertaining us at the same time.
I am tempramentally inclined to a rather austere Calvinism myself, in that anything worthwhile should be difficult and uncomfortable. Nonethess, even I would concede that there are moments in life that are not completely unpleasant. I do my best to avoid that sort of shallow hedonism too often though
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorship?
Whether the people of Hong Kong, which has historically been a prosperous liberal democracy, want to remain permanently part of that is up to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a larger state?
Not withstanding that this sounds like a voodoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit population wise and with a bigger gdp
Yet you say Scotland should not be allowed to be independent or even vote on it if it wants to.
Scotland voted 55% for the Union in 2014 and 63% for Unionist parties in 2017 after the SNP pushed indyref2 following the Brexit vote.
Of course we could take the Chinese and Spanish way of dealing with nationalists and declare martial law in Scotland and suspend Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon and SNP ministers and send tanks, troops, special forces and the police to Scotland but I have not advocated that
Conflating voting on different topics does not cut it , not all Labour , Tory , LDems, Greens etc are against Independence.
A majority of Tory, Labour and LD voters are and combined those parties got a 63% voteshare at the 2017 general election
They were not all against Independence though, shouting "look a squirrel" does not make your case any better. Just the same as if your granny had wheels she would be a wheelbarrow.
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
Lord of Reason has stirred us up interestingly, and seems partly motivated by just disliking the movies (I think I saw them and they didn't leave much impression). I remember talking to a Greek Communist and espousintg the delights of tolerance democratic debate - I may have even cited the pleasures of PM. He said sadly that he wished that Greece could be like that, but too many terrible things had been done by each side to avoid feeling hatred to their enemies. I understand, but it's not good.
I'm as political as Lord of Reason, I'd think - I've spent most of my adult life primarily trying to make life better for people who seem to me to have shitty elements to their lives, and I've accepted a certain amount of personal sacrifice in the process. But I still think the poroducer is right that the media love to dwell on the grim things and it's not an accurate picture of the delights that most people in Britain and many other countries do feel in everyday existence.
It is very difficult indeed to have any sort of reporting of a trial if the defendant’s name is not known. So you end up in practice with secret trials, where a guessing game goes on as to who the trial is about. Rather than have open justice you end up having a position where those in the know have information and others don’t, which is inimical IMO to having an open, transparent justice system. You are more likely to have gossip and rumour and innuendo spreading. It may also affect the progress of the trial because new evidence, both for the prosecution and the defence, may come to light. It makes reporting of matters which are in the public domain impossible so that the ramifications go far beyond reporting of a trial.
There are already strict rules on how a trial is reported. The way to deal with this is to strengthen those laws and enforce them properly not retreat into a sentimental view that the feelings of the defendant should override other more important considerations. And the problems are not just - or even primarily - with the press. It is often the police who leak confidential information, entirely improperly. Action to deal with that is badly needed.
If we want to help defendants, we could stop the destruction of the legal aid system and provide some effective remedy for those defendants who end up seriously out of pocket, even when found not to be guilty.
Edited the blockquotes to make sense, I think . You're assuming that the defendant kis well-known, aren't you? I'm assuming that it's someone nobody except acquaintances and colleagues has ever heard of, which must be the case 99% of the time. If the Mail reports that Joe Bloggs has been accused of something horrible, all Bloggs's friends may never look at him in the same way again, even if the accusations are entirely false. The rest of us read about the unknown Bloggs and shake our heads over his depravity, but actually we could "enjoy" (or whatever it is that makes us read this stuff, if we do) the reports just as much if it said X.
Would you favour disclosing the names of juvenile defendants, on the same basis? If not, what's the difference?
"A man acquitted of rape has lost his Supreme Court appeal to remove any reference to the case from his enhanced criminal records check.
The qualified teacher, who cannot be named, was found not guilty of a rape in 2011 after a Crown Court trial.
When he applied for a job following his acquittal, details of the allegation and verdict were included in his criminal records certificate.
He claims the reference infringed his right to respect for private life.
On Monday the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. and ruled that disclosing the man's acquittal was proportionate in the context of his job application."
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
Lombjorg is not that Panglossian, but if we look at the worldwide drop in Fertility rate, we are heading to a stabilised world population by the mid century. There are problems, but also great progress in the world. When I was born most of Europe was under dictators, now only Belarus is, and both Africa and Latin America are mostly democratic and at peace.
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
There are already strict rules on how a trial is reported. The way to deal with this is to strengthen those laws and enforce them properly not retreat into a sentimental view that the feelings of the defendant should override other more important considerations. And the problems are not just - or even primarily - with the press. It is often the police who leak confidential information, entirely improperly. Action to deal with that is badly needed.
If we want to help defendants, we could stop the destruction of the legal aid system and provide some effective remedy for those defendants who end up seriously out of pocket, even when found not to be guilty.
Edited the blockquotes to make sense, I think . You're assuming that the defendant kis well-known, aren't you? I'm assuming that it's someone nobody except acquaintances and colleagues has ever heard of, which must be the case 99% of the time. If the Mail reports that Joe Bloggs has been accused of something horrible, all Bloggs's friends may never look at him in the same way again, even if the accusations are entirely false. The rest of us read about the unknown Bloggs and shake our heads over his depravity, but actually we could "enjoy" (or whatever it is that makes us read this stuff, if we do) the reports just as much if it said X.
Would you favour disclosing the names of juvenile defendants, on the same basis? If not, what's the difference?
"A man acquitted of rape has lost his Supreme Court appeal to remove any reference to the case from his enhanced criminal records check.
The qualified teacher, who cannot be named, was found not guilty of a rape in 2011 after a Crown Court trial.
When he applied for a job following his acquittal, details of the allegation and verdict were included in his criminal records certificate.
He claims the reference infringed his right to respect for private life.
On Monday the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. and ruled that disclosing the man's acquittal was proportionate in the context of his job application."
Hundreds of complaints of alleged antisemitism against Labour members remain unaddressed and its internal investigation unit has all but collapsed, insiders say.
Hundreds of complaints of alleged antisemitism against Labour members remain unaddressed and its internal investigation unit has all but collapsed, insiders say.
Hundreds of complaints of alleged antisemitism against Labour members remain unaddressed and its internal investigation unit has all but collapsed, insiders say.
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
Lord of Reason has stirred us up interestingly, and seems partly motivated by just disliking the movies (I think I saw them and they didn't leave much impression). I remember talking to a Greek Communist and espousintg the delights of tolerance democratic debate - I may have even cited the pleasures of PM. He said sadly that he wished that Greece could be like that, but too many terrible things had been done by each side to avoid feeling hatred to their enemies. I understand, but it's not good.
I'm as political as Lord of Reason, I'd think - I've spent most of my adult life primarily trying to make life better for people who seem to me to have shitty elements to their lives, and I've accepted a certain amount of personal sacrifice in the process. But I still think the poroducer is right that the media love to dwell on the grim things and it's not an accurate picture of the delights that most people in Britain and many other countries do feel in everyday existence.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=VOzYPXvCqXA
That needs a Curtis bittersweet love scene as antidote:
Record numbers of London homeowners are selling up to buy cheaper property in the north and Midlands, using profits made in the capital to splurge on bigger homes.
Very sensible. You get far better value outside London.
Well yes. However - and I confess I comment on this without reading the article - but my understanding of the last ten years of house prices is that everywhere has done better than London. So you can't really 'use the profits' made in the capital as the amount of house you can buy in the North and Midlands with your London house has declined since 2008. If you'd bought in 1997 and sold in 2007, you could have 'used the profits'.
That would depend on the actual values involved. To take an extreme case, a one million pound house going up in value by 10% would have gained more value than a £50,000 pound house that went up by 100%.
HK will never be independent. It’s a city in an empire of 1.4 billion people. Economically it’s a nice to have for China, but it’s 2% of GDP vs 20% at the time of the handover.
Either way, it’s none of our business.
Hong Kong has about the same population and GDP as Singapore which is an independent city state
That is up to the people of Hong Kong.
Given almost a third back armed revolution who knows what they ultimately choose but ultimately it is up to them
Learn what? China is a One Party State Communist authoritarian dictatorsp to them
What size unit should be allowed to secede from a largdoo poll of students.
Theoretically any size unit population wise and with a bigger gdp
Yet you say Scotland should not be allowed to be independent or even vote on it if it wants to.
Scotland voted 55% for the Union in 2014 and 63% for Unionist parties in 2017 after the SNP pushed indyref2 following the Brexit vote.
Of course we could take the Chinese and Spanish way of dealing with nationalists and declare martial law in Scotland and suspend Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon and SNP ministers and send tanks, troops, special forces and the police to Scotland but I have not advocated that
Conflating voting on different topics does not cut it , not all Labour , Tory , LDems, Greens etc are against Independence.
A majority of Tory, Labour and LD voters are and combined those parties got a 63% voteshare at the 2017 general election
They were not all against Independence though, shouting "look a squirrel" does not make your case any better. Just the same as if your granny had wheels she would be a wheelbarrow.
Most Labour, Tory and LD voters voted against independence in 2014.
As I said you had one independence referendum 4 years ago you lost and were lucky you had a liberal coalition government that gave you that. If we had a British nationalist government led by a Trump like figure we could have gone down the Spanish route in Catalonia or taken the approach the Chinese would have done and suspended Holyrood, declared martial law, sent troops to Scotland and arrested Sturgeon and Scottish ministers
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
Lombjorg is not that Panglossian, but if we look at the worldwide drop in Fertility rate, we are heading to a stabilised world population by the mid century. There are problems, but also great progress in the world. When I was born most of Europe was under dictators, now only Belarus is, and both Africa and Latin America are mostly democratic and at peace.
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
Given Russia and Hungary are both in Europe, saying Putin and Orban are not dictators is debateable
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
Lombjorg is not that Panglossian, but if we look at the worldwide drop in Fertility rate, we are heading to a stabilised world population by the mid century. There are problems, but also great progress in the world. When I was born most of Europe was under dictators, now only Belarus is, and both Africa and Latin America are mostly democratic and at peace.
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
Given Russia and Hungary are both in Europe, saying Putin and Orban are not dictators is debateable
Orban is not a dictator. It’s absurd to claim otherwise.
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
Lombjorg is not that Panglossian, but if we look at the worldwide drop in Fertility rate, we are heading to a stabilised world population by the mid century. There are problems, but also great progress in the world. When I was born most of Europe was under dictators, now only Belarus is, and both Africa and Latin America are mostly democratic and at peace.
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
Given Russia and Hungary are both in Europe, saying Putin and Orban are not dictators is debateable
Sure, some countries are more democratic than others*, but neither of those needed to cheat to get elected.
*Some use a wonderful electoral system known as Alternative Vote, and even the D'Hondt system
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
Lombjorg is not that Panglossian, but if we look at the worldwide drop in Fertility rate, we are heading to a stabilised world population by the mid century. There are problems, but also great progress in the world. When I was born most of Europe was under dictators, now only Belarus is, and both Africa and Latin America are mostly democratic and at peace.
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
Given Russia and Hungary are both in Europe, saying Putin and Orban are not dictators is debateable
Sure, some countries are more democratic than others*, but neither of those needed to cheat to get elected.
*Some use a wonderful electoral system known as Alternative Vote, and even the D'Hondt system
Orban is unpleasant but he's not a cheat or a dictator.
Putin is. There's no free press and opposition parties and politicians get harassed and prosecuted.
I take no particular view of the Curtis films*, which are rather harmless feel-good Rom Coms, but there is rather alot of good news in the world:
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
And confidence in the sustainability of access to safer drinking water fell, the amount of plastic in the oceans rose by n%, world population rose by an unsustainable n%, probably also n species went extinct and life expectancy in some countries fell. Oh and the USA decided to militarise space (or at least recognise its de facto militarisation). I don't think Panglossism has that much to offer atm.
Lombjorg is not that Panglossian, but if we look at the worldwide drop in Fertility rate, we are heading to a stabilised world population by the mid century. There are problems, but also great progress in the world. When I was born most of Europe was under dictators, now only Belarus is, and both Africa and Latin America are mostly democratic and at peace.
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
Given Russia and Hungary are both in Europe, saying Putin and Orban are not dictators is debateable
Orban is not a dictator. It’s absurd to claim otherwise.
Orban does manage to combine being pro-Israeli and antisemitic. Corbyn would doubtless argue he is the opposite.
Comments
Plus Hong Kong is both larger than Scotland population wise and with a bigger gdp
https://www.theredroar.com/2018/08/its-a-murray-family-affair/
To me that is bizarre, I would expect a mature adult to stop it in the first place or if serious report it to the police, not turn up 6 years later with some half baked accusations.
Cyclefree: as others have said, I want trials reported without names unless the defendant waives anonymity (and maybe the complainant too - can be relevant for rape and similar cases). What does it add to justice to know that the defendant is called Joe Bloggs? But for Bloggs it's horrible if he's innocent.
Lord of Reason has stirred us up interestingly, and seems partly motivated by just disliking the movies (I think I saw them and they didn't leave much impression). I remember talking to a Greek Communist and espousintg the delights of tolerance democratic debate - I may have even cited the pleasures of PM. He said sadly that he wished that Greece could be like that, but too many terrible things had been done by each side to avoid feeling hatred to their enemies. I understand, but it's not good.
I'm as political as Lord of Reason, I'd think - I've spent most of my adult life primarily trying to make life better for people who seem to me to have shitty elements to their lives, and I've accepted a certain amount of personal sacrifice in the process. But I still think the poroducer is right that the media love to dwell on the grim things and it's not an accurate picture of the delights that most people in Britain and many other countries do feel in everyday existence.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/meet-israeli-born-art-mogul-gave-tories-500000-last-year-set/
The major issue isn’t reciprocal flying rights, which of course does need to be agreed, but the entire regulation of the industry via EASA, which threatens to make British planes unairworthy and British pilots and ATCOs unlicensed.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf
I might write a thread header to submit to OGH on this, everyone is confusing the two issues.
Trying to pretend that things which are happening are not happening by covering them up or not talking about them or by removing them from the historical record (as in the “right to be forgotten”) is utterly babyish, stemming from a belief that nothing bad should ever happen to anyone even when something bad is clearly happening. Rather than acknowledge the latter and try and deal with it (reporting restrictions are a way of balancing the need for open justice vs avoiding prurient commentary) there is a tendency to want to protect everyone even at the price of distorting a very important and valuable principle, which has important real life practical consequences.
Society really needs to grow up sometimes.
In short, I hated Amelie, but I don't see that because Curtis chooses to make films focusing on the lighter side of things is unreasonable, since others make films which are unrealistically grim, as anything which holds one note and does not acknowledge the lighter side of things is just as unrealistic as something which shows no dark side, so his may well be a counterpoint to that sort of dark fare, which in extreme cases is just misery porn inspiring darkness induced apathy.
I believe there have been tv series' based on it, which I cannot believe are as brutal, in a much more cutesy style, but hilariously even the original movie had some posters which look cutesy.
In fact, I seem to recall they are making a new version. The book is one of my favourites, it has stuck with me ever since I read it as a child.
Here's some facts:
"Singapore became part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963 following a merger with Malaya, North Borneo, and Sarawak.
.....
Seeing no alternative to avoid further bloodshed, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to expel Singapore from the federation. The Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0, with all Singaporean MPs boycotting the vote, in favour of the expulsion on 9 August 1965. On that day, a tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced on a televised press conference that Singapore was a sovereign, independent nation. In a widely remembered quote, he uttered that: "For me, it would be a moment of anguish. I mean for me, it is a moment of anguish because all my life….you see the whole of my adult life…. I have believed in Merger and the unity of the two territories. You know it's a people connected by geography, economics, and ties of kinship... ."[5] The new state became the Republic of Singapore."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore
The increase in membership will raise concerns that the party is at risk from a ‘blue Momentum-style’ takeover among supporters furious with the deal which keeps Britain closely tied to the European Union after Brexit.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/26/surge-conservative-membership-chequers-deal-prompts-fears-blue/
Blue-rinse Momentum...
But, beneath the surface, there have been big changes. The Conservatives would have lost 65 seats that they would have held in 1987, with a 2.5% lead, but would have gained 34. Among the new seats that have been created, the Conservatives enjoy a net gain of 21.
The impact of people moving out of big cities is mixed. They can shift some seats leftwards, but a growing population in the hinterland creates more seats in those areas, and reduces the number in the cities, favouring the Conservatives. Also, people who move out of cities can change their political outlook - as we've seen with London overspill seats in Hertfordshire and Essex. If the Conservatives were 2.5% ahead, Labour would have won Basildon in 1987, but would not come close now.
The results we see today were (mostly) predictable thirty years ago. White working class seats were trending Conservative. Middle class urban seats, and university seats, were trending Labour. Merseyside was moving left at a rate of knots, and has moved even further left. The two big exceptions are Greater London and Scotland. Greater London looked to moving right, and Scotland moving Left. From 1992 onwards, Greater London has moved left, whereas Scotland has suddenly shifted Right.
A more subtle point which I think is still overlooked is that even now, despite years and in some cases decades of campaigning on this very issue, even the public faces of Brexit have no shared, agreed vision of what Brexit ought to look like.
This is important when considering bets on the next prime minister for instance. It is folly to assume that ERG members will vote as a block for Boris or anyone else: they are as divided on Brexit as the rest of us.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/aug/27/londoners-selling-up-in-record-numbers-to-move-north
Has nobody told them its grim up north?
Fluffball. Cuddles. Gandalf. The three cats from next door shitting on my borage are already on the list, you’ll be at home with them.
However, I believe this makes TM position as secure as it has been and firms up conservative mps against Boris and JRM
Very sensible. You get far better value outside London.
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/08/27/jeremy-corbyn-honouring-richard-falk/
Meanwhile, Chris Williamson:
https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1033982771251884032
The world has changed radically as to how we can gather information about events in the past. The internet has permanently changed how our histories are stored.
All it takes is a few clicks to find out what you think you want to know about a person. And that can taint that person's chances of getting a job, a home, whatever. Sometimes completely wrongly because of name confusion or wrong reporting or because you find the page that says they were charged and never happen across the report of their being found guilty.
I don't know what the solution is - that is for others to determine - but we need to offer everyone involved in the criminal justice system some protections to avoid future harm.
Making the shift to post-conviction reporting of certain crimes has the most appeal to me as it means that only the guilty are revealed. But I also see the risks in that.
Post-charge reporting can aid in gathering evidence. But not all charges end up in court for whatever reason and so it is much harder for the accused in that situation to see that situation reported in the media to the same extent as their original charging.
The internet has been great for many, many things. But in the area of criminal justice, it has rather muddied some waters.
Of course we could take the Chinese and Spanish way of dealing with nationalists and declare martial law in Scotland and suspend Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon and SNP ministers and send tanks, troops, special forces and the police to Scotland but I have not advocated that
Would you favour disclosing the names of juvenile defendants, on the same basis? If not, what's the difference?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/londons-property-sales-slump-region-has-recovered-financial/
Looking at this again, this is sales rather than prices.
But in my local market - South Manchester - prices have gone up by at least 50% since 2008, probably more.
Years ago, we were told by an employee that a fellow employee was then on trial for running a brothel. This had been reported in the local paper. Needless to say the employee in question had not revealed this, both in breach of company policy and his duty of integrity. Had this not been reported we would never have found out. And we would have continued to employ someone who had displayed a lack of integrity and honesty, with the consequent risk to clients, his colleagues and the bank.
But, hey, his feelings would have been protected.....
If it were possible to ensure all pre-trial media reports were automatically updated with the eventual conviction/acquittal, that would be something - as all the salient details would be accessible at all times. But that isn't a practical solution.
It is human nature to believe 'there is no smoke without fire' - and I don't see that changing. We certainly can't legislate to stop it.
But at the moment, the balance isn't right for all cases.
We cannot legislate against Jo Bloggs’ friends thinking that an innocent man is not innocent. And they may well still think that even if his name is not in the Mail because it will be practically impossible to stop his name becoming known - but informally and in a way in which even the existing protections of the Contempt of Court laws may not be available. So you do not prevent the harm you are seeking to avoid but may make it worse and do damage a very important part of our justice system.
Once you are charged you are involved in a public process. You are no longer a private citizen. We long ago moved away, for very good reasons, from private justice. That has implications for everyone involved in the process: defendants, witnesses, investigators, everyone. I have been in two of those categories. You lose some element of privacy. But that is because it is necessary to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. We can do what we can to mitigate some of the effects where we can but not, IMO, at the expense of that very important principle, which is for the benefit of us all. The feelings of one individual do not override these other considerations.
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1034039101245284352
I have criticised other examples, I should forward one that fits my argument. Rather than the death spiral of Austen, Shakespeare, endless vanity fair remakes, if film or TV would dramatise something like Lud In The Mist for example, you would appreciate my point. An underpinning of political reality doesn’t have to be a Loachian misery, as Lud In The Mist proves, it can sound a note we don’t forget and may have missed about ourselves and society, whilst diverting and entertaining us at the same time.
"what happened over the past 24 hours: seen this way, just in the last day, average life expectancy increased by 9.5 hours; 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty; and 305,000 got access to safer drinking water. The media could have told each of these stories every single day since 1990"
from:
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1031931506879590407?s=19
* I do rather like 4 weddings, but agree with Mark Kermode, Hugh Grant should have married Kirsten Scott Thomas, rather than the wooden Andie McDowell.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/04/the-subversive-awkwardness-of-em-four-weddings-and-a-funeral-em/360703/
I am tempramentally inclined to a rather austere Calvinism myself, in that anything worthwhile should be difficult and uncomfortable. Nonethess, even I would concede that there are moments in life that are not completely unpleasant. I do my best to avoid that sort of shallow hedonism too often though
The qualified teacher, who cannot be named, was found not guilty of a rape in 2011 after a Crown Court trial.
When he applied for a job following his acquittal, details of the allegation and verdict were included in his criminal records certificate.
He claims the reference infringed his right to respect for private life.
On Monday the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. and ruled that disclosing the man's acquittal was proportionate in the context of his job application."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290
The MENA region is doing particularly poorly in terms of social, economic and political progress, but even there therre is room for optimism.
A criminal record check should only record when someone has actually been convicted of a crime. Until conviction, you are not a criminal.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-antisemitism-inquiry-close-to-collapse-pgdd5hmbv
And we know that Labour doesn't have a problem with antisemitism. People like Chris Williamson keep telling us that it is all just smears.
https://order-order.com/2018/08/24/labour-clear-holocaust-mongers-candidate/
https://youtu.be/gI4Tb7x3mQo
As I said you had one independence referendum 4 years ago you lost and were lucky you had a liberal coalition government that gave you that. If we had a British nationalist government led by a Trump like figure we could have gone down the Spanish route in Catalonia or taken the approach the Chinese would have done and suspended Holyrood, declared martial law, sent troops to Scotland and arrested Sturgeon and Scottish ministers
It would be fun to see their reaction...
*Some use a wonderful electoral system known as Alternative Vote, and even the D'Hondt system
Putin is. There's no free press and opposition parties and politicians get harassed and prosecuted.
Here is the Jerusalem Post (aka first link google found):
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Hungarys-Viktor-Orban-fosters-antisemitism-563642