I was more interested in the message than the messenger.
If true, it might explain Macron's hard line stance in the belief he can force us to back down. That could end badly for all concerned.
Macron thinks himself The Last Jedi.
He really is that crap.
I think its more than that.
He realises no UK means theres nobody he can call on to stand up to Germany. France is just a a vassal and he has pissed off half of Europe while doing Merkels bidding.
France may well also doing more of the military heavy lifting for the EU if Britain disengages.
Today's Press Conference in the Hague illustrates how much help European countries get from UK Intelligence - not that Druncker acknowledged that in his 'The EU is on top of this' statement.
Nah France uses the Foreign Legion better get foreigners in the body bags than the Gauloisers
But they don't have all the kit - they're currently relying on UK helicopters and Heavy Lift to shift the bodies.....
I knew someone would post that and I’m ready for you. You only think it’s poorly constructed because you are on other side of it, if there’s a referendum on capital punishment you confident of winning it?
The mistake you are making is just using that one piece of QT to make your point. We both know there’s a whole lot more to be said than that. It’s that particular clip that convinces me.
I know why it’s Patel, a Thatcher style leader needed, because I know exactly what is wrong with the Tories at the moment, the reason why they are heading for the U bend and the great drain of opposition: they are listening to voters too much on the doorsteps. Simples.
I agree a single QT clip is not enough to condemn her. Her track record otherwise is hardly stellar though. Sacked for disloyalty and dishonesty, a lobbyist for big tobacco and alcohol and a background in PR.
If you want a Thatcherite, I think you can do better. Liz Truss perhaps.
I don’t see the problem with that lobbying. Increasing drinking and smoking will lower life expectancy, ease the burden on councils in terms of social care, and fill the exchequer’s coffers. What’s not to like?
I was more interested in the message than the messenger.
If true, it might explain Macron's hard line stance in the belief he can force us to back down. That could end badly for all concerned.
Macron thinks himself The Last Jedi.
He really is that crap.
I think its more than that.
He realises no UK means theres nobody he can call on to stand up to Germany. France is just a a vassal and he has pissed off half of Europe while doing Merkels bidding.
France may well also doing more of the military heavy lifting for the EU if Britain disengages.
Today's Press Conference in the Hague illustrates how much help European countries get from UK Intelligence - not that Druncker acknowledged that in his 'The EU is on top of this' statement.
Nah France uses the Foreign Legion better get foreigners in the body bags than the Gauloisers
But they don't have all the kit - they're currently relying on UK helicopters and Heavy Lift to shift the bodies.....
True. a friend has a daughter in the RAF and shes been sent to Mali on helicopter duty, why the french cant run their own is a puzzle
I am anti death penalty for the very reason that Ian Hislop points out. We have had multiple miscarriages of justice since death penalty was abolished, not least the case of Stefan Kiszko, a man with mental incapacity and personality disorder, who was set up by West Yorkshire police for the murder of Lesley Molseed. FYI - his incompetent lawyer David Waddington went on to become Thatcher's last Home Secretary, and a strong advocate for the death penalty!
If you support the death penalty you have to accept wrongly convicted people will be murdered by the state. I cannot support that in any circumstance.
If this clip convinces you that Priti Patel has the qualities to be Prime Minister, i have to say that leaves me slightly aghast.
Mr. Brooke, could be lack of equipment or equipment in disrepair. I remember reading (on Twitter, but think it was via Andrew Neil) that Germany has loads of tanks etc but almost all are not in working order.
Also worth noting the UK and France have a bilateral understanding on military co-operation so that'll likely be unchanged in the event of leaving the EU.
Dems are throwing their toys out of the pram over the additional FBI report.
They agreed to have a limited further investigation. Which is what they got.
Now it was the wrong kind of 'limited'
It is clear what game they are playing. They will continue to move the goalposts as long as they possibly can.
Feinstein hasn't even read it in full - but has still decided it isn't enough.
For all the faults of the GOP, the Dems have played Dr Ford for political gain and have made it harder for other victims of abuse to come forward.
It is pure politics and not very edifying.
Trump will lose lots of women voters over this. I would expect huge demonstrations over the coming weeks in Washington but Trump is a divisive figure not fit for purpose and expect he does not care
What do you mean "hastened our departure"? We triggered A50, we leave two years later. What had the initial timetable been which M. Macron has affected today?
I think you're missing "attitudes of the likes of".....
And you're missing my point: what is being hastened?
I knew someone would post that and I’m ready for you. You only think it’s poorly constructed because you are on other side of it, if there’s a referendum on capital punishment you confident of winning it?
The mistake you are making is just using that one piece of QT to make your point. We both know there’s a whole lot more to be said than that. It’s that particular clip that convinces me.
I know why it’s Patel, a Thatcher style leader needed, because I know exactly what is wrong with the Tories at the moment, the reason why they are heading for the U bend and the great drain of opposition: they are listening to voters too much on the doorsteps. Simples.
I agree a single QT clip is not enough to condemn her. Her track record otherwise is hardly stellar though. Sacked for disloyalty and dishonesty, a lobbyist for big tobacco and alcohol and a background in PR.
If you want a Thatcherite, I think you can do better. Liz Truss perhaps.
She’s now pushing for significant trade links with India
And what has that to do with me making a sarcastic reply to a rhetorical question from Gareth?
Good. Always wise to 'know the enemy'! What did you think of it?
It was fair enough for rousing the faithful, but it did not set my pulse racing nor convert me to the cause.
To me he just sounded like the usual brand of unhinged Leaver that the Conservatives have allowed to overrun them. He has evidently yet to collide with reality.
What do you mean "hastened our departure"? We triggered A50, we leave two years later. What had the initial timetable been which M. Macron has affected today?
I think you're missing "attitudes of the likes of".....
And you're missing my point: what is being hastened?
The vote to leave. He is saying with fewer people like him the U.K. may have voted to remain in 2016, only to leave at a later date.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation…
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends."
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
The only way Dr Ford's letter could have been leaked is from within the offices of an elected Democrat Senator or Congresswoman or from Dr Ford's own lawyers. Someone has been using Dr Ford for political ends.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
Macron drops 3 more points in the popularity stakes. He;s now approaching the unpopularity rating of Hollande ( 7 points to go ) at the end of his presidency
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
What do you mean "hastened our departure"? We triggered A50, we leave two years later. What had the initial timetable been which M. Macron has affected today?
I think you're missing "attitudes of the likes of".....
And you're missing my point: what is being hastened?
The vote to leave. He is saying with fewer people like him the U.K. may have voted to remain in 2016, only to leave at a later date.
Nah. It's a bollocks point. Not worth the half dozen posts here on the subject.
What do you mean "hastened our departure"? We triggered A50, we leave two years later. What had the initial timetable been which M. Macron has affected today?
I think you're missing "attitudes of the likes of".....
And you're missing my point: what is being hastened?
The vote to leave. He is saying with fewer people like him the U.K. may have voted to remain in 2016, only to leave at a later date.
Nah. It's a bollocks point. Not worth the half dozen posts here on the subject.
To be fair, most of those were explaining it to you.
I think another referendum is a distinct possibility, even given that one will no more magic itself out of thin air than a deal will.
That said it will definitely not be either (a) 3 way or more nor (b) deal vs remain.
If we get a deal but it is rejected by parliament, deal vs no deal is possible. This would depend on ERG wing deciding if it's in their interest to legitimise no deal at that stage, thus pre-empting the push back for remain.
If we get no deal or ERG do not take option 1, then no deal vs remain comes into play. We would be in full on threat of VoNC by this stage and this would be the way of averting it.
It's close, but both referendum options could conceivably carry majority support and, as such, the technical issues would be overcome.
The rub is this: both 'no deal' and 'remain' could be formulated as somewhat more complex options either by the government or by the campaign's:
No deal as seen by ERG could well be - apply for A50 extension and pursue Canada+, as per ERG wish, but fall back to WTO if this fails. A remain formulated by HMG could either be pure EEA plus CU or else something like - attempt to revoke A50 and promise not to reinvoke, apply for dual membership of EU and EFTA, transfer EU undertakings to our EFTA membership, build and bring into trial service invisible border with RoI, withdraw with no further agreement nor A50 needed at end of subsequent budget cycle. Subsequent GE manifesto commitments would be able to alter this approach.
I was more interested in the message than the messenger.
If true, it might explain Macron's hard line stance in the belief he can force us to back down. That could end badly for all concerned.
It’s possible that the likes of Blair, Adonis and Clegg are, with their frequent visits to Europe, erroneously convincing European politicians that somehow we will all change our minds on leaving and we’ll just forget it ever happened.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation…
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends."
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
The only way Dr Ford's letter could have been leaked is from within the offices of an elected Democrat Senator or Congresswoman or from Dr Ford's own lawyers. Someone has been using Dr Ford for political ends.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
"Believe in the rule of law", except as it pertains to perjury ?
”I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation…”
Mr. Brooke, could be lack of equipment or equipment in disrepair. I remember reading (on Twitter, but think it was via Andrew Neil) that Germany has loads of tanks etc but almost all are not in working order.
Also worth noting the UK and France have a bilateral understanding on military co-operation so that'll likely be unchanged in the event of leaving the EU.
Fraid so Mr D
while we bewail the state of our own armed forces, they are in better order than most of our Euro neighbours.
Macron drops 3 more points in the popularity stakes. He;s now approaching the unpopularity rating of Hollande ( 7 points to go ) at the end of his presidency
And what has that to do with me making a sarcastic reply to a rhetorical question from Gareth?
Good. Always wise to 'know the enemy'! What did you think of it?
It was fair enough for rousing the faithful, but it did not set my pulse racing nor convert me to the cause.
To me he just sounded like the usual brand of unhinged Leaver that the Conservatives have allowed to overrun them. He has evidently yet to collide with reality.
Reality is on the way. Personally I look forward to watching the collision.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
If you want a Thatcherite, I think you can do better. Liz Truss perhaps.
Heard her on R4, a bit unconvincing. From memory it went like this:
LT: "We have prepared a contingency fund for the case of No Deal." Interviewer (politely): "How much is the contingency fund?" LT: "You can look up the details on our website" Interviewer: "You're the First Secretary to the Treasury, you can tell us, can't you?" LT: (waffles)
She clearly didn't know. Which is OK in principle, one can't know everything. But as she introduced the subject, she should have known.
I have had a lovely day buying plants and gorgeous lingerie.
And none of your polyester harlot muck, either
Beautiful shoes, lovely lingerie, a simple dress showing off your best features and a stunning coat makes a woman, well this one, feel amazing, no matter what the mirror might say. And then to rest on my chaise longue looking out at the garden where the roses are still flourishing, well...... what else does one need.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler.
Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel. From out between the tired and fading old big beasts of eurosceptism she will, with their endorsements, spring like a tiger. Imagine May v Ledsome, only it ain’t Leadsom it’s Patel, and she ain’t rolling over.
If you have any respect or admiration for Margaret Thatcher, your vote has to go to Patel. Whatever Maggie had, Patel has in spades. Interviews, speeches, knows her subject, knows her mind, it all adds up to confidence, drive to win and smack of firm leadership. Imagine the day the Conservative Party make Patel PM, you can go to your cocoa and goodnights sleep knowing Britain has its Thatcher back. Just in time too.
Some of you are pretty switched on, surely it can’t just be me who sees this?
Why did Patel fly to Israel to meet government ministers there without telling any government colleagues?
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister?
20 years in Parliament, 4 years in the cabinet, 4 years as leader of the opposition were a decent start. 8 years in parliament and one Secretary of State from which she was sacked, not so promising.
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends."
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
The only way Dr Ford's letter could have been leaked is from within the offices of an elected Democrat Senator or Congresswoman or from Dr Ford's own lawyers. Someone has been using Dr Ford for political ends.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
"Believe in the rule of law", except as it pertains to perjury ?
”I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation…”
That is an assertion not proof. He seems to have remarkable recall of conversations and incidents more than 30 years ago. I was at University from 88 to 91 and in possession of a decent memory. But I cannot be that certain of that sort of detail.
I have no idea as to the truth of what he is saying. And maybe there is cause to investigate this further.
However it was not the subject of the supplemental investigation - which was to look at the allegations on the table. The limited investigation which was acceptable to the Dems last Friday. Now it is not.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation…
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends."
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
The only way Dr Ford's letter could have been leaked is from within the offices of an elected Democrat Senator or Congresswoman or from Dr Ford's own lawyers. Someone has been using Dr Ford for political ends.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
You're right Simon. Ford's accusation, and those of fellow accusers, should be tested in a courtroom.
That's not currently the question in front of the Senate, which is whether to confirm Kavanaugh.
There is absolutely no way a UK judge would be appointed to our Supreme Court in these circumstances. There is no legal requirement to appoint anyone now - the Republican are just worried about mid-terms.
Beautiful shoes, lovely lingerie, a simple dress showing off your best features and a stunning coat makes a woman, well this one, feel amazing, no matter what the mirror might say. And then to rest on my chaise longue looking out at the garden where the roses are still flourishing, well...... what else does one need.
I have had a lovely day buying plants and gorgeous lingerie.
And none of your polyester harlot muck, either
Beautiful shoes, lovely lingerie, a simple dress showing off your best features and a stunning coat makes a woman, well this one, feel amazing, no matter what the mirror might say. And then to rest on my chaise longue looking out at the garden where the roses are still flourishing, well...... what else does one need.
I am anti death penalty for the very reason that Ian Hislop points out. We have had multiple miscarriages of justice since death penalty was abolished, not least the case of Stefan Kiszko, a man with mental incapacity and personality disorder, who was set up by West Yorkshire police for the murder of Lesley Molseed. FYI - his incompetent lawyer David Waddington went on to become Thatcher's last Home Secretary, and a strong advocate for the death penalty!
If you support the death penalty you have to accept wrongly convicted people will be murdered by the state. I cannot support that in any circumstance.
If this clip convinces you that Priti Patel has the qualities to be Prime Minister, i have to say that leaves me slightly aghast.
Are you saying Margaret Thatcher wasn’t a great Prime Minsister? Even where her opponents didn’t agree with her policy, they respected her. Because the point of smoking out that QT clip is the utter madness of people failing a job interview because they don’t tick every box, that seems to be the point you seem to be insisting on, is it not. Patel doesn’t tick your box on capital punishment, so you end the interview there. Whilst I am making the point, when choosing a leader, choose best of breed. And Maggie is the perfect example which proves you wrong.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
I have thought that for a while to be honest but everyone is entitled to their views
I've had a chance to read the speeches of Cable, Corbyn and May. Just as an observation, May's came in at just over 7000 words with Corbyn's at 5800 words and Vince changing the world in just 4,300.
Credit where credit is due, May's speech and delivery were light years in advance of the 2017 debacle. I confess I still don't understand May's politics - it draws on a romanticised nostalgia which creates a romanticised optimism of and for the future but politicians in general and Prime Ministers in particular have to be all about optimism and hope because the truth won't get them elected.
"Our best days are yet to come" always resonates and it's always easier to sound glass half full than glass half empty. There's a desperate inclusivity in May's Conservatism - the Conservatives are literally for anyone and everyone. "The Only Party You'll Ever Need" might be the slogan going forward which is basically "Trust Theresa" expressed differently.
The May world is upbeat familiarity where "hard work" - what is this obsession with Conservatives and hard work? - gets recognised in general if not necessarily rewarded. It will always be a better tomorrow and it always was a better yesterday.
Corbyn's speech wasn't that different. It was a piece of self-identification (as if we didn't know what he stood for, as if we didn't know with May either). I liked his use of the term "human" and the use of individual cases to forward his world view. That said, the constant invective against wealth is curious. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be wealthy, to take care of yourself and your family and to build whatever you consider a good life. You could argue there's more to wealth than material acquisition and possession and there's some truth in that but the constant negativity toward that which is aspirational for so many in the capitalist system was personally unattractive.
I'm too close to Vince's speech to comment much on it. I was disappointed to see how much time was wasted on trying to prevent the completion of the A50 process and the argument for re-joining the EU seemed once again to focus on "reform" when it is fairly obvious the kind of reforms the UK wants within the EU aren't on the table at this time.
One area all three talked about was housing and oddly enough I can see a cross party concensus emerging. All three agreed there was a big problem and more homes needed to be built. May stressed the virtue of home ownership while Corbyn talked up the provision of affordable accommodation as did Vince.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
And what has that to do with me making a sarcastic reply to a rhetorical question from Gareth?
Good. Always wise to 'know the enemy'! What did you think of it?
It was fair enough for rousing the faithful, but it did not set my pulse racing nor convert me to the cause.
To me he just sounded like the usual brand of unhinged Leaver that the Conservatives have allowed to overrun them. He has evidently yet to collide with reality.
And what has that to do with me making a sarcastic reply to a rhetorical question from Gareth?
Good. Always wise to 'know the enemy'! What did you think of it?
It was fair enough for rousing the faithful, but it did not set my pulse racing nor convert me to the cause.
To me he just sounded like the usual brand of unhinged Leaver that the Conservatives have allowed to overrun them. He has evidently yet to collide with reality.
Reality is on the way. Personally I look forward to watching the collision.
Time to order popcorn while it's still available. 😬
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Whilst the death penalty is obviously irreversible and due to the potential for an undoable flaw is there (Hence personally I'd rule it out), I think US style solitary supermax life without parole for the most heinous criminals is fitting justice.
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
You're right Simon. Ford's accusation, and those of fellow accusers, should be tested in a courtroom.
That's not currently the question in front of the Senate, which is whether to confirm Kavanaugh.
There is absolutely no way a UK judge would be appointed to our Supreme Court in these circumstances. There is no legal requirement to appoint anyone now - the Republican are just worried about mid-terms.
I am not sure how the US system works with regards to private prosecutions - but there is almost zero possibility of finding a state or federal prosecutor who would proceed on the evidence provided by Dr Ford or Ms Ramirez.
Dr Ford has been unable to pin down the time, date or location of the incident. None of the witnesses she has put forward have been able to help in this regard. She has also been unclear as to the number of people in the room during the incident.
I am fully aware of the way memory can be affected by trauma and only certain things will remain clear. But a prosecutor will need more than what has been presented to date before they will proceed.
Ms Ramirez is on record saying that she cannot be certain as to who exposed himself to her. So if the victim can't be certain and no other witnesses have been able to help (as far as I understand things) - how can that reach a court?
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
You're right Simon. Ford's accusation, and those of fellow accusers, should be tested in a courtroom.
That's not currently the question in front of the Senate, which is whether to confirm Kavanaugh.
There is absolutely no way a UK judge would be appointed to our Supreme Court in these circumstances. There is no legal requirement to appoint anyone now - the Republican are just worried about mid-terms.
I am not sure how the US system works with regards to private prosecutions - but there is almost zero possibility of finding a state or federal prosecutor who would proceed on the evidence provided by Dr Ford or Ms Ramirez.
Dr Ford has been unable to pin down the time, date or location of the incident. None of the witnesses she has put forward have been able to help in this regard. She has also been unclear as to the number of people in the room during the incident.
I am fully aware of the way memory can be affected by trauma and only certain things will remain clear. But a prosecutor will need more than what has been presented to date before they will proceed.
Ms Ramirez is on record saying that she cannot be certain as to who exposed himself to her. So if the victim can't be certain and no other witnesses have been able to help (as far as I understand things) - how can that reach a court?
Prosecutions are typically proceeded by investigations which seek to identify what evidence there might be (if any) -save for the complainant's testimony - on which to base a prosecution.
There is virtually never enough evidence prior to investigation. All prosecutions start with accusations.
Yes, the conversation tends to draw to a crashing halt with pro-death types when one asks them how many deaths of the wrongly accused they would be willing to tolerate in order to bring back hanging.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler.
Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel. From out between the tired and fading old big beasts of eurosceptism she will, with their endorsements, spring like a tiger. Imagine May v Ledsome, only it ain’t Leadsom it’s Patel, and she ain’t rolling over.
If you have any respect or admiration for Margaret Thatcher, your vote has to go to Patel. Whatever Maggie had, Patel has in spades. Interviews, speeches, knows her subject, knows her mind, it all adds up to confidence, drive to win and smack of firm leadership. Imagine the day the Conservative Party make Patel PM, you can go to your cocoa and goodnights sleep knowing Britain has its Thatcher back. Just in time too.
Some of you are pretty switched on, surely it can’t just be me who sees this?
Do you mean Priti Patel?!
Her performance on the death penalty question on QT is perhaps the most poorly constructed argument I've ever seen a politician give. For those that haven't seen it...
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Whilst the death penalty is obviously irreversible and due to the potential for an undoable flaw is there (Hence personally I'd rule it out), I think US style solitary supermax life without parole for the most heinous criminals is fitting justice.
Ironically executing someone costs more than a life sentence when you factor in the (mandatory) appellate processes.
And what has that to do with me making a sarcastic reply to a rhetorical question from Gareth?
Good. Always wise to 'know the enemy'! What did you think of it?
It was fair enough for rousing the faithful, but it did not set my pulse racing nor convert me to the cause.
To me he just sounded like the usual brand of unhinged Leaver that the Conservatives have allowed to overrun them. He has evidently yet to collide with reality.
When are Remainers going to collide with reality?
We're leaving.....
Remainers are very clear sighted about the coming disaster.
When it comes, the headbanging Leavers will still be denying that any of the problems are problems or that they have anything to do with them. The responsibility-avoiders will still be avoiding responsibility.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler.
Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel. From out between the tired and fading old big beasts of eurosceptism she will, with their endorsements, spring like a tiger. Imagine May v Ledsome, only it ain’t Leadsom it’s Patel, and she ain’t rolling over.
If you have any respect or admiration for Margaret Thatcher, your vote has to go to Patel. Whatever Maggie had, Patel has in spades. Interviews, speeches, knows her subject, knows her mind, it all adds up to confidence, drive to win and smack of firm leadership. Imagine the day the Conservative Party make Patel PM, you can go to your cocoa and goodnights sleep knowing Britain has its Thatcher back. Just in time too.
Some of you are pretty switched on, surely it can’t just be me who sees this?
Do you mean Priti Patel?!
Her performance on the death penalty question on QT is perhaps the most poorly constructed argument I've ever seen a politician give. For those that haven't seen it...
No doubt if there were a referendum on the Death Penalty won by those in favour of reverting to it, the argument over whether to use firing squad, the gallows, electric chair or lethal injection would be interpreted by the anti brigade as conclusive proof the public didn't know what it was voting for
OK. Let me turn that around.
Imagine that instead of having a referendum on "AV", we'd had one on "Not having FPTP".
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Just to re-iterate. Were Maggie to have had her way on the death penalty issue, we'd have killed;
The Birmingham Six The Guildford Four The Bridgewater Four Stefan Kiszko
Amongst many many others.
Do you believe the state should have murdered these people just because "Maggie stood up to people who shouted her down"?
But the killer fact is Ten years as prime minister and she didn’t kill any of those people. But if you had your way you would have killed her political career stone dead. That’s where you are wrong. That’s where your politics is wrong. You don’t need ticks all down your checklist, you just need best of breed.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler.
Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel. From out between the tired and fading old big beasts of eurosceptism she will, with their endorsements, spring like a tiger. Imagine May v Ledsome, only it ain’t Leadsom it’s Patel, and she ain’t rolling over.
If you have any respect or admiration for Margaret Thatcher, your vote has to go to Patel. Whatever Maggie had, Patel has in spades. Interviews, speeches, knows her subject, knows her mind, it all adds up to confidence, drive to win and smack of firm leadership. Imagine the day the Conservative Party make Patel PM, you can go to your cocoa and goodnights sleep knowing Britain has its Thatcher back. Just in time too.
Some of you are pretty switched on, surely it can’t just be me who sees this?
Do you mean Priti Patel?!
Her performance on the death penalty question on QT is perhaps the most poorly constructed argument I've ever seen a politician give. For those that haven't seen it...
I knew someone would post that and I’m ready for you. You only think it’s poorly constructed because you are on other side of it, if there’s a referendum on capital punishment you confident of winning it?
The mistake you are making is just using that one piece of QT to make your point. We both know there’s a whole lot more to be said than that. It’s that particular clip that convinces me.
I know why it’s Patel, a Thatcher style leader needed, because I know exactly what is wrong with the Tories at the moment, the reason why they are heading for the U bend and the great drain of opposition: they are listening to voters too much on the doorsteps. Simples.
I oppose the death penalty. But I could go on TV and make a much better case for it than Ms Patel did.
And what has that to do with me making a sarcastic reply to a rhetorical question from Gareth?
Good. Always wise to 'know the enemy'! What did you think of it?
It was fair enough for rousing the faithful, but it did not set my pulse racing nor convert me to the cause.
To me he just sounded like the usual brand of unhinged Leaver that the Conservatives have allowed to overrun them. He has evidently yet to collide with reality.
When are Remainers going to collide with reality?
We're leaving.....
Remainers are very clear sighted about the coming disaster.
When it comes, the headbanging Leavers will still be denying that any of the problems are problems or that they have anything to do with them. The responsibility-avoiders will still be avoiding responsibility.
I would like to ask a question, however: how many people have been murdered by people jailed for what would have been a capital crime, who were then released and murdered again?
I seem to recall at least one such case, but not enough detail to Google.
I would like to ask a question, however: how many people have been murdered by people jailed for what would have been a capital crime, who were then released and murdered again?
I seem to recall at least one such case, but not enough detail to Google.
I have had a lovely day buying plants and gorgeous lingerie.
And none of your polyester harlot muck, either
Beautiful shoes, lovely lingerie, a simple dress showing off your best features and a stunning coat makes a woman, well this one, feel amazing, no matter what the mirror might say. And then to rest on my chaise longue looking out at the garden where the roses are still flourishing, well...... what else does one need.
A decent foot rub is nice whilst sipping a glass of bubbles
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Just to re-iterate. Were Maggie to have had her way on the death penalty issue, we'd have killed;
The Birmingham Six The Guildford Four The Bridgewater Four Stefan Kiszko
Amongst many many others.
Do you believe the state should have murdered these people just because "Maggie stood up to people who shouted her down"?
But the killer fact is Ten years as prime minister and she didn’t kill any of those people. But if you had your way you would have killed her political career stone dead. That’s where you are wrong. That’s where your politics is wrong. You don’t need ticks all down your checklist, you just need best of breed.
Those people did not die because enough MPs had the sense to see the total insanity of the death penalty for the reasons I posted above.
The state killing innocent citizens for crimes they didn't commit is not just 'any other issue on a checklist', it goes to the moral fibre of an individual.
Also at no point did I judge the greatness or otherwise of Margaret Thatcher, so please stop putting words in my mouth.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
Just to re-iterate. Were Maggie to have had her way on the death penalty issue, we'd have killed;
The Birmingham Six The Guildford Four The Bridgewater Four Stefan Kiszko
Amongst many many others.
Do you believe the state should have murdered these people just because "Maggie stood up to people who shouted her down"?
But the killer fact is Ten years as prime minister and she didn’t kill any of those people. But if you had your way you would have killed her political career stone dead. That’s where you are wrong. That’s where your politics is wrong. You don’t need ticks all down your checklist, you just need best of breed.
Mrs Thatcher would have - and did - make a good case for the death penalty. Priti Patel did not.
I could easily vote for someone who supported the death penalty. Frankly, unless they were planning to whip a vote for it, then it is a matter of conscience that MPs should be allowed to vote freely on.
But I couldn't vote for someone who performed so poorly when faced with that question. And who conducted a parallel foreign policy, and then when asked lied about it. And then lied about it a second time. She seems someone who thinks herself smarter than she is.
I would like to ask a question, however: how many people have been murdered by people jailed for what would have been a capital crime, who were then released and murdered again?
I seem to recall at least one such case, but not enough detail to Google.
Don't know without research. I'm sure it's happened, though as murder carries a mandatory life sentence, they wouldn't have been released for a long time.
Then again you might as well ask how many people have been murdered by people jailed for offences short of murder and then released. There's a saying among criminal lawyers that most murders are GBHs gone wrong. So if you were going to use the risk of reoffending as a reason for reinstating the death penalty, you might as well impose the death penalty for GBH, as the risk of the perpetrator killing someone after release is almost as great.
(For the record, I am passionately opposed to the death penalty in all cases)
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler.
Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel. From out between the tired and fading old big beasts of eurosceptism she will, with their endorsements, spring like a tiger. Imagine May v Ledsome, only it ain’t Leadsom it’s Patel, and she ain’t rolling over.
If you have any respect or admiration for Margaret Thatcher, your vote has to go to Patel. Whatever Maggie had, Patel has in spades. Interviews, speeches, knows her subject, knows her mind, it all adds up to confidence, drive to win and smack of firm leadership. Imagine the day the Conservative Party make Patel PM, you can go to your cocoa and goodnights sleep knowing Britain has its Thatcher back. Just in time too.
Some of you are pretty switched on, surely it can’t just be me who sees this?
Why did Patel fly to Israel to meet government ministers there without telling any government colleagues?
My guess is, she felt government policy wasnt brave enough in standing up for what’s right but went too far in pushing that.
Ever made a simple, and relatively harmless mistake yourself? I’m sure you have. This one was hardly Gallipoli, not that even Gallipoli is bar on becoming prime minister when your right person right time.
Mrs C/Miss Cyclefree, you missed my brilliant post about how a weather-delayed shipment of oil could diminish free practice running for McLaren and Renault at the Japanese Grand Prix
Prosecutions are typically proceeded by investigations which seek to identify what evidence there might be (if any) -save for the complainant's testimony - on which to base a prosecution.
There is virtually never enough evidence prior to investigation. All prosecutions start with accusations.
I appreciate that - but the basic facts of the Ford case as so far presented by her and her team make any investigation very difficult, if not impossible.
If the victim is unable to say when or where it happened then you are off to a bad start. Add in the fact that there is no physical evidence to be found - and things get worse.
Yes, much of this is true of many historical allegations. And that makes them very difficult - for the victims and those accused.
I am not saying that I think this is a good thing. But the realities of the situation are that Dr Ford stands very little chance of having her day in court. Which does not help her. And it also doesn't help Kavanaugh - who has little chance of having his name cleared by a non guilty verdict (should that be the appropriate verdict at the end of a trial)
No justice system is perfect - particularly with historical cases. We can wish it weren't so. But no-one has yet found an alternative that would work better.
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
You're right Simon. Ford's accusation, and those of fellow accusers, should be tested in a courtroom.
That's not currently the question in front of the Senate, which is whether to confirm Kavanaugh.
There is absolutely no way a UK judge would be appointed to our Supreme Court in these circumstances. There is no legal requirement to appoint anyone now - the Republican are just worried about mid-terms.
I am not sure how the US system works with regards to private prosecutions - but there is almost zero possibility of finding a state or federal prosecutor who would proceed on the evidence provided by Dr Ford or Ms Ramirez.
Dr Ford has been unable to pin down the time, date or location of the incident. None of the witnesses she has put forward have been able to help in this regard. She has also been unclear as to the number of people in the room during the incident.
I am fully aware of the way memory can be affected by trauma and only certain things will remain clear. But a prosecutor will need more than what has been presented to date before they will proceed.
Ms Ramirez is on record saying that she cannot be certain as to who exposed himself to her. So if the victim can't be certain and no other witnesses have been able to help (as far as I understand things) - how can that reach a court?
This does not require a criminal level of proof, but rather is a job interview.
Kavanaugh has demonstrated several reasons for his lack of suitability for the highest court in the land, but for partisan reasons the Republicans want to force him through.
What is it abaut whiny, entitled posh boys that they like so much?
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister?
20 years in Parliament, 4 years in the cabinet, 4 years as leader of the opposition were a decent start. 8 years in parliament and one Secretary of State from which she was sacked, not so promising.
Little harsh holding fact hasn’t been leader against her being elected leader for first time. From what you have left subtract Cameron’s parliament and ministerial experience before becoming leader and PM and you don’t have any counter argument left. You can try again if you want. Or you could quietly take another look at Patel in coming weeks to see if you can also see what I am seeing.
Whilst the death penalty is obviously irreversible and due to the potential for an undoable flaw is there (Hence personally I'd rule it out), I think US style solitary supermax life without parole for the most heinous criminals is fitting justice.
Justice is a huge area for reform, sadly Michael Gove got moved on before he could complete his efforts there.
At the bottom end, nonviolent offenders should be kept out of the prison system and dealt with by community punishments, whereas at the other end we have the terrorists, serial killers, killers of children and policemen, who have forfeited their right to participate in society and should be locked up forever.
Dealing with those in the middle is the difficult bit. We need to spend more time preparing prisoners for life outside, train them in a trade or further study and work with employers so that they can come out to a job - which makes them orders of magnitude less likely to end up back inside. Unfortunately this requires more prisons and more money, as well as a change in attitude from the employers. I believe Timpson has a scheme whereby they take on ex-cons as cobblers and key cutters, but very few other companies do.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
Why would that be? I’m the only one on here that’s “always” right.
Whilst the death penalty is obviously irreversible and due to the potential for an undoable flaw is there (Hence personally I'd rule it out), I think US style solitary supermax life without parole for the most heinous criminals is fitting justice.
Justice is a huge area for reform, sadly Michael Gove got moved on before he could complete his efforts there.
At the bottom end, nonviolent offenders should be kept out of the prison system and dealt with by community punishments, whereas at the other end we have the terrorists, serial killers, killers of children and policemen, who have forfeited their right to participate in society and should be locked up forever.
Dealing with those in the middle is the difficult bit. We need to spend more time preparing prisoners for life outside, train them in a trade or further study and work with employers so that they can come out to a job - which makes them orders of magnitude less likely to end up back inside. Unfortunately this requires more prisons and more money, as well as a change in attitude from the employers. I believe Timpson has a scheme whereby they take on ex-cons as cobblers and key cutters, but very few other companies do.
Mrs C/Miss Cyclefree, you missed my brilliant post about how a weather-delayed shipment of oil could diminish free practice running for McLaren and Renault at the Japanese Grand Prix
Surely they’ve chartered a biz jet with another batch of oil on board for Friday, just in case?
Mrs C/Miss Cyclefree, you missed my brilliant post about how a weather-delayed shipment of oil could diminish free practice running for McLaren and Renault at the Japanese Grand Prix
I did notice it, but it failed to move me to words. TBH, if I have trouble sleeping I think of F1 ....
I would like to ask a question, however: how many people have been murdered by people jailed for what would have been a capital crime, who were then released and murdered again?
I seem to recall at least one such case, but not enough detail to Google.
Far too many murder trials these days are decided on very weak evidence to warrant a return to the death penalty, the police need a conviction and the jury feel obiged to give it to them. Take Michael Stone convicted of killing Lin and Megan Russell. He may well have done it and is definitely a dangeorus individual but there is absolutely no evidence linking him to the crime scene at all, no sightings no DNA, nothing. He was found guilty as he allegedly told someone who is now a convicted killer when being held on remand that he did it. If the death penalty existed he would now be dead and I think it is highly likely that over the next 2-3 years his conviction will be quashed.
A local spark near me was the first to be convicted of murder on the double jeopardy rule as 4 years after his acqulital of murdering a old lady in her home (as there was no evidence) his DNA was suddenly found on the ladies blouse in a evidence bag that had been cut. Mention DNA and the jury will always found someone guilty as they think it is perfect evidence which these days it is not as the technology has moved on so much they can pick up even the tiniest amounts of DNA. That may sound good but if you handle a bank note, hand it to someone else and they, using the same hand, pick up a knife and kill someone, your DNA will be on that knife.
I always though that in Murder cases the burden of proof had to be so high yet these are the cases which often have the least evidence because the police need a conviction to satisfy the press/public demands.
I was more interested in the message than the messenger.
If true, it might explain Macron's hard line stance in the belief he can force us to back down. That could end badly for all concerned.
It’s possible that the likes of Blair, Adonis and Clegg are, with their frequent visits to Europe, erroneously convincing European politicians that somehow we will all change our minds on leaving and we’ll just forget it ever happened.
If you add Labour conference, and those Tories calling for second ref into your list, then yes, we now negotiating with EU who have that in their mind.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
Why would that be? I’m the only one on here that’s “always” right.
As far as that article is concerned, he has no evidence relating to the Ramirez allegations.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
You're right Simon. Ford's accusation, and those of fellow accusers, should be tested in a courtroom.
That's not currently the question in front of the Senate, which is whether to confirm Kavanaugh.
There is absolutely no way a UK judge would be appointed to our Supreme Court in these circumstances. There is no legal requirement to appoint anyone now - the Republican are just worried about mid-terms.
I am not sure how the US system works with regards to private prosecutions - but there is almost zero possibility of finding a state or federal prosecutor who would proceed on the evidence provided by Dr Ford or Ms Ramirez.
Dr Ford has been unable to pin down the time, date or location of the incident. None of the witnesses she has put forward have been able to help in this regard. She has also been unclear as to the number of people in the room during the incident.
I am fully aware of the way memory can be affected by trauma and only certain things will remain clear. But a prosecutor will need more than what has been presented to date before they will proceed.
Ms Ramirez is on record saying that she cannot be certain as to who exposed himself to her. So if the victim can't be certain and no other witnesses have been able to help (as far as I understand things) - how can that reach a court?
This does not require a criminal level of proof, but rather is a job interview.
Kavanaugh has demonstrated several reasons for his lack of suitability for the highest court in the land, but for partisan reasons the Republicans want to force him through.
What is it abaut whiny, entitled posh boys that they like so much?
He is probably a good church-goer. That excuses nearly anything in the US
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
Why would that be? I’m the only one on here that’s “always” right.
Mrs Thatcher would have - and did - make a good case for the death penalty. Priti Patel did not.
I could easily vote for someone who supported the death penalty. Frankly, unless they were planning to whip a vote for it, then it is a matter of conscience that MPs should be allowed to vote freely on.
But I couldn't vote for someone who performed so poorly when faced with that question. And who conducted a parallel foreign policy, and then when asked lied about it. And then lied about it a second time. She seems someone who thinks herself smarter than she is.
In the early Thatcher years there were frequent demands from the right of her party for a referendum on restoring the death penalty. Despite her personal support for restoration she firmly resisted the idea of a referendum as she thought it would open a pandoras box of demands for referenda on controversial issues which would lead to the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. If only her successors had shared her firmness and prescience we would not be in the mess we are today.
Mr Larsson misses the point. That border is entirely political. It defines Northern Ireland and creates a space for a certain demographic while forcing the other half of the population into a political place where they don't want to be. The DUP and the people it represents LOVE the border. The harder the better. The rest of the population hate it. The Good Friday Agreement was a historic compromise. The other half of the population accept living in the UK and Northern Ireland for an official recognition of a borderless Irish identity. No amount of "technical solutions" will prevent that compromise unravelling if that Irish identity is lost.
I am not totally opposed to the death sentence in principle, even given that you will not eliminate miscarriages no matter how good your justice is.
In reality, though, I am totally opposed to what any reintroduction would mean in practice. To minimise miscarriages I would necessarily expect long lead times for executions with lots of expensive process, as in America. Worse still, with our press, I would expect those processes to drive celebritisation and, indeed, more copycatting of our most notorious killers. That this sickening spectacle would be whipped up to titilate the outrage mostly of those very advocates of the death penalty would be abhorrent.
Mrs Thatcher would have - and did - make a good case for the death penalty. Priti Patel did not.
I could easily vote for someone who supported the death penalty. Frankly, unless they were planning to whip a vote for it, then it is a matter of conscience that MPs should be allowed to vote freely on.
But I couldn't vote for someone who performed so poorly when faced with that question. And who conducted a parallel foreign policy, and then when asked lied about it. And then lied about it a second time. She seems someone who thinks herself smarter than she is.
In the early Thatcher years there were frequent demands from the right of her party for a referendum on restoring the death penalty. Despite her personal support for restoration she firmly resisted the idea of a referendum as she thought it would open a pandoras box of demands for referenda on controversial issues which would lead to the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. If only her successors had shared her firmness and prescience we would not be in the mess we are today.
After her resignation she suggested, from the back benches, that Maastricht should not be passed without a referendum.
Mrs Thatcher would have - and did - make a good case for the death penalty. Priti Patel did not.
I could easily vote for someone who supported the death penalty. Frankly, unless they were planning to whip a vote for it, then it is a matter of conscience that MPs should be allowed to vote freely on.
But I couldn't vote for someone who performed so poorly when faced with that question. And who conducted a parallel foreign policy, and then when asked lied about it. And then lied about it a second time. She seems someone who thinks herself smarter than she is.
In the early Thatcher years there were frequent demands from the right of her party for a referendum on restoring the death penalty. Despite her personal support for restoration she firmly resisted the idea of a referendum as she thought it would open a pandoras box of demands for referenda on controversial issues which would lead to the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. If only her successors had shared her firmness and prescience we would not be in the mess we are today.
We may have ended up leaving without a referendum!
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
Why would that be? I’m the only one on here that’s “always” right.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler.
Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel. From out between the tired and fading old big beasts of eurosceptism she will, with their endorsements, spring like a tiger. Imagine May v Ledsome, only it ain’t Leadsom it’s Patel, and she ain’t rolling over.
If you have any respect or admiration for Margaret Thatcher, your vote has to go to Patel. Whatever Maggie had, Patel has in spades. Interviews, speeches, knows her subject, knows her mind, it all adds up to confidence, drive to win and smack of firm leadership. Imagine the day the Conservative Party make Patel PM, you can go to your cocoa and goodnights sleep knowing Britain has its Thatcher back. Just in time too.
Some of you are pretty switched on, surely it can’t just be me who sees this?
Do you mean Priti Patel?!
Her performance on the death penalty question on QT is perhaps the most poorly constructed argument I've ever seen a politician give. For those that haven't seen it...
I knew someone would post that and I’m ready for you. You only think it’s poorly constructed because you are on other side of it, if there’s a referendum on capital punishment you confident of winning it?
The mistake you are making is just using that one piece of QT to make your point. We both know there’s a whole lot more to be said than that. It’s that particular clip that convinces me.
I know why it’s Patel, a Thatcher style leader needed, because I know exactly what is wrong with the Tories at the moment, the reason why they are heading for the U bend and the great drain of opposition: they are listening to voters too much on the doorsteps. Simples.
I oppose the death penalty. But I could go on TV and make a much better case for it than Ms Patel did.
In your opinion.
Why not make it here right now? We wouldn’t have to take you on your word, you would actually prove it.
Just imagine you are on QT and the question comes up.
Mrs C, a while ago, maybe a decade now, I saw a psychological study that found atheists were seen as untrustworthy (in the context of whether or not the subject would pick up a hitchhiker with that status) as a rapist. The study was in the US.
Dems are throwing their toys out of the pram over the additional FBI report.
They agreed to have a limited further investigation. Which is what they got.
Now it was the wrong kind of 'limited'
It is clear what game they are playing. They will continue to move the goalposts as long as they possibly can.
Feinstein hasn't even read it in full - but has still decided it isn't enough.
For all the faults of the GOP, the Dems have played Dr Ford for political gain and have made it harder for other victims of abuse to come forward.
Kavanaugh was always going to be confirmed. The Republicans don't seem to mind that their President is an inveterate lier, bully and someone who treats women with contempt. Nor, seemingly, do a large section of the American public. It was therefore never going to be an obstacle to his confirmation even if proved.
Whilst the death penalty is obviously irreversible and due to the potential for an undoable flaw is there (Hence personally I'd rule it out), I think US style solitary supermax life without parole for the most heinous criminals is fitting justice.
Justice is a huge area for reform, sadly Michael Gove got moved on before he could complete his efforts there.
At the bottom end, nonviolent offenders should be kept out of the prison system and dealt with by community punishments, whereas at the other end we have the terrorists, serial killers, killers of children and policemen, who have forfeited their right to participate in society and should be locked up forever.
Dealing with those in the middle is the difficult bit. We need to spend more time preparing prisoners for life outside, train them in a trade or further study and work with employers so that they can come out to a job - which makes them orders of magnitude less likely to end up back inside. Unfortunately this requires more prisons and more money, as well as a change in attitude from the employers. I believe Timpson has a scheme whereby they take on ex-cons as cobblers and key cutters, but very few other companies do.
Agree with that. However, how do you define nonviolent? For my mind those who set out to deliberately rob or defraud the elderly or those with disabilities are far more deserving of incarceration than those involved in drunken bar fights.
Javid or Hunt both entirely possible, but think Mordaunt would clearly be the best.
It has to be Patel. It will be Patel.
An interesting view. Which of Patel's great ministerial achievements do you think in particular single her out for the top job?
Hi ya Carlo. Which of Thatchers ministerial achievements singled her out to be the great prime minister? Killing more grammar schools than anyone else?
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
You really should think about changing your PB username.
Why would that be? I’m the only one on here that’s “always” right.
So you're Lord Adonis then?
That’s just rude.
I note your non-denial denial.....
I am not Lord Adonis. I can’t stand the twat. The part he played in the New Labour governments last days says everything about New Labour and the fact it’s had its day.
But I note I said this, and no ones questioned it, so this is all accepted true then: Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia. Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler. Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
I also suggested Patel should be in the running, but that bit has been Knocked around a bit. It’s like I said something beyond the pale even for this site.
Mrs C, a while ago, maybe a decade now, I saw a psychological study that found atheists were seen as untrustworthy (in the context of whether or not the subject would pick up a hitchhiker with that status) as a rapist. The study was in the US.
Having said that, it might not save Mr Kavaunagh....
"A group representing 100,000 congregations and 45 million churchgoers across an array of Christian denominations in the U.S. has called for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be withdrawn."
I would like to ask a question, however: how many people have been murdered by people jailed for what would have been a capital crime, who were then released and murdered again?
I seem to recall at least one such case, but not enough detail to Google.
How many would change your mind?
A very large figure *might*. But on the other hand, a large number of people killed who later turned out to be innocent would reinforce my current position.
Comments
I am anti death penalty for the very reason that Ian Hislop points out. We have had multiple miscarriages of justice since death penalty was abolished, not least the case of Stefan Kiszko, a man with mental incapacity and personality disorder, who was set up by West Yorkshire police for the murder of Lesley Molseed. FYI - his incompetent lawyer David Waddington went on to become Thatcher's last Home Secretary, and a strong advocate for the death penalty!
If you support the death penalty you have to accept wrongly convicted people will be murdered by the state. I cannot support that in any circumstance.
If this clip convinces you that Priti Patel has the qualities to be Prime Minister, i have to say that leaves me slightly aghast.
Also worth noting the UK and France have a bilateral understanding on military co-operation so that'll likely be unchanged in the event of leaving the EU.
Trump will lose lots of women voters over this. I would expect huge demonstrations over the coming weeks in Washington but Trump is a divisive figure not fit for purpose and expect he does not care
*Puts on tin hat*
The GOP just needs to keep Flake away from Soros funded activists in elevators.
"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends."
Why - when the supplemental investigation was set up to look at the specific allegations regarding sexual assault - would the FBI talk to someone who states that he has no knowledge of the matter under investigation?
I have no interest in this other than a serious concern about the undermining of the presumption of innocence and due process that is being encouraged by the way the Democrats have handled this matter.
The only way Dr Ford's letter could have been leaked is from within the offices of an elected Democrat Senator or Congresswoman or from Dr Ford's own lawyers. Someone has been using Dr Ford for political ends.
I believe in the rule of law, in due process and the presumption of innocence.
I believe that Dr Ford had to be heard - and she was. She was very persuasive. But there are inconsistencies in her stories, there are big gaps. Yes, it is almost impossible to find evidence with historical allegations. But there has to be more than just 'believing'.
So I am not partisan in this. But I am concerned at the abuse of due process. I am concerned about how Dr Ford has been used.
Macron drops 3 more points in the popularity stakes. He;s now approaching the unpopularity rating of Hollande ( 7 points to go ) at the end of his presidency
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2018/10/04/01002-20181004ARTFIG00101-sondage-les-difficultes-persistent-pour-emmanuel-macron.php
If you are going to pick a prime minister, please pick one that can actually do the job.Forget their party faction, they are in the party and it’s a broad church is it not? Forget past gaffs and misdemeanours.
I was watching TV in seventies when Maggie stood up for Capital Punishment, to be shouted down and abused by those opposite her in much the same way as the clip. The point is she stood up to them. The parallels between these two ladies leaps off the page.
Did Maggie spend too much time listening to voters? Or leading them? All you are going to get from voters is symptoms, What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes, and that often means standing up to voters, not pandering to them. Voters aren’t the boss. That’s why it must be Patel. That’s why that kind of leader is exactly what British Conservatives need right now.
That said it will definitely not be either (a) 3 way or more nor (b) deal vs remain.
If we get a deal but it is rejected by parliament, deal vs no deal is possible. This would depend on ERG wing deciding if it's in their interest to legitimise no deal at that stage, thus pre-empting the push back for remain.
If we get no deal or ERG do not take option 1, then no deal vs remain comes into play. We would be in full on threat of VoNC by this stage and this would be the way of averting it.
It's close, but both referendum options could conceivably carry majority support and, as such, the technical issues would be overcome.
The rub is this: both 'no deal' and 'remain' could be formulated as somewhat more complex options either by the government or by the campaign's:
No deal as seen by ERG could well be - apply for A50 extension and pursue Canada+, as per ERG wish, but fall back to WTO if this fails.
A remain formulated by HMG could either be pure EEA plus CU or else something like - attempt to revoke A50 and promise not to reinvoke, apply for dual membership of EU and EFTA, transfer EU undertakings to our EFTA membership, build and bring into trial service invisible border with RoI, withdraw with no further agreement nor A50 needed at end of subsequent budget cycle. Subsequent GE manifesto commitments would be able to alter this approach.
”I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation…”
while we bewail the state of our own armed forces, they are in better order than most of our Euro neighbours.
So what do popularity ratings matter at this point? indeed some of the changes required in France guarantee unpopularity.
LT: "We have prepared a contingency fund for the case of No Deal."
Interviewer (politely): "How much is the contingency fund?"
LT: "You can look up the details on our website"
Interviewer: "You're the First Secretary to the Treasury, you can tell us, can't you?"
LT: (waffles)
She clearly didn't know. Which is OK in principle, one can't know everything. But as she introduced the subject, she should have known.
I have had a lovely day buying plants and gorgeous lingerie.
And none of your polyester harlot muck, either
Beautiful shoes, lovely lingerie, a simple dress showing off your best features and a stunning coat makes a woman, well this one, feel amazing, no matter what the mirror might say. And then to rest on my chaise longue looking out at the garden where the roses are still flourishing, well...... what else does one need.
https://order-order.com/2018/10/04/sadiqs-top-advisers-over-ruled-gla-officials-to-make-trump-blimp-fly/
I have no idea as to the truth of what he is saying. And maybe there is cause to investigate this further.
However it was not the subject of the supplemental investigation - which was to look at the allegations on the table. The limited investigation which was acceptable to the Dems last Friday. Now it is not.
Just to re-iterate. Were Maggie to have had her way on the death penalty issue, we'd have killed;
The Birmingham Six
The Guildford Four
The Bridgewater Four
Stefan Kiszko
Amongst many many others.
Do you believe the state should have murdered these people just because "Maggie stood up to people who shouted her down"?
That's not currently the question in front of the Senate, which is whether to confirm Kavanaugh.
There is absolutely no way a UK judge would be appointed to our Supreme Court in these circumstances. There is no legal requirement to appoint anyone now - the Republican are just worried about mid-terms.
I've had a chance to read the speeches of Cable, Corbyn and May. Just as an observation, May's came in at just over 7000 words with Corbyn's at 5800 words and Vince changing the world in just 4,300.
Credit where credit is due, May's speech and delivery were light years in advance of the 2017 debacle. I confess I still don't understand May's politics - it draws on a romanticised nostalgia which creates a romanticised optimism of and for the future but politicians in general and Prime Ministers in particular have to be all about optimism and hope because the truth won't get them elected.
"Our best days are yet to come" always resonates and it's always easier to sound glass half full than glass half empty. There's a desperate inclusivity in May's Conservatism - the Conservatives are literally for anyone and everyone. "The Only Party You'll Ever Need" might be the slogan going forward which is basically "Trust Theresa" expressed differently.
The May world is upbeat familiarity where "hard work" - what is this obsession with Conservatives and hard work? - gets recognised in general if not necessarily rewarded. It will always be a better tomorrow and it always was a better yesterday.
Corbyn's speech wasn't that different. It was a piece of self-identification (as if we didn't know what he stood for, as if we didn't know with May either). I liked his use of the term "human" and the use of individual cases to forward his world view. That said, the constant invective against wealth is curious. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be wealthy, to take care of yourself and your family and to build whatever you consider a good life. You could argue there's more to wealth than material acquisition and possession and there's some truth in that but the constant negativity toward that which is aspirational for so many in the capitalist system was personally unattractive.
I'm too close to Vince's speech to comment much on it. I was disappointed to see how much time was wasted on trying to prevent the completion of the A50 process and the argument for re-joining the EU seemed once again to focus on "reform" when it is fairly obvious the kind of reforms the UK wants within the EU aren't on the table at this time.
One area all three talked about was housing and oddly enough I can see a cross party concensus emerging. All three agreed there was a big problem and more homes needed to be built. May stressed the virtue of home ownership while Corbyn talked up the provision of affordable accommodation as did Vince.
https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/news/priti-patel-finally-changes-her-mind-death-penalty
So Priti Patel is no Thatcher.
We're leaving.....
The best quote from that is from Patel herself when asked if she still supported the death penalty; "“The answer is no, I have made that very clear”.
Made that very clear, by arguing the complete and total opposite i presume?!
Dr Ford has been unable to pin down the time, date or location of the incident. None of the witnesses she has put forward have been able to help in this regard. She has also been unclear as to the number of people in the room during the incident.
I am fully aware of the way memory can be affected by trauma and only certain things will remain clear. But a prosecutor will need more than what has been presented to date before they will proceed.
Ms Ramirez is on record saying that she cannot be certain as to who exposed himself to her. So if the victim can't be certain and no other witnesses have been able to help (as far as I understand things) - how can that reach a court?
There is virtually never enough evidence prior to investigation. All prosecutions start with accusations.
Patel is a cretin.
When it comes, the headbanging Leavers will still be denying that any of the problems are problems or that they have anything to do with them. The responsibility-avoiders will still be avoiding responsibility.
Imagine that instead of having a referendum on "AV", we'd had one on "Not having FPTP".
I would like to ask a question, however: how many people have been murdered by people jailed for what would have been a capital crime, who were then released and murdered again?
I seem to recall at least one such case, but not enough detail to Google.
The state killing innocent citizens for crimes they didn't commit is not just 'any other issue on a checklist', it goes to the moral fibre of an individual.
Also at no point did I judge the greatness or otherwise of Margaret Thatcher, so please stop putting words in my mouth.
I could easily vote for someone who supported the death penalty. Frankly, unless they were planning to whip a vote for it, then it is a matter of conscience that MPs should be allowed to vote freely on.
But I couldn't vote for someone who performed so poorly when faced with that question. And who conducted a parallel foreign policy, and then when asked lied about it. And then lied about it a second time. She seems someone who thinks herself smarter than she is.
Then again you might as well ask how many people have been murdered by people jailed for offences short of murder and then released. There's a saying among criminal lawyers that most murders are GBHs gone wrong. So if you were going to use the risk of reoffending as a reason for reinstating the death penalty, you might as well impose the death penalty for GBH, as the risk of the perpetrator killing someone after release is almost as great.
(For the record, I am passionately opposed to the death penalty in all cases)
Ever made a simple, and relatively harmless mistake yourself? I’m sure you have.
If the victim is unable to say when or where it happened then you are off to a bad start. Add in the fact that there is no physical evidence to be found - and things get worse.
Yes, much of this is true of many historical allegations. And that makes them very difficult - for the victims and those accused.
I am not saying that I think this is a good thing. But the realities of the situation are that Dr Ford stands very little chance of having her day in court. Which does not help her. And it also doesn't help Kavanaugh - who has little chance of having his name cleared by a non guilty verdict (should that be the appropriate verdict at the end of a trial)
No justice system is perfect - particularly with historical cases. We can wish it weren't so. But no-one has yet found an alternative that would work better.
Kavanaugh has demonstrated several reasons for his lack of suitability for the highest court in the land, but for partisan reasons the Republicans want to force him through.
What is it abaut whiny, entitled posh boys that they like so much?
At the bottom end, nonviolent offenders should be kept out of the prison system and dealt with by community punishments, whereas at the other end we have the terrorists, serial killers, killers of children and policemen, who have forfeited their right to participate in society and should be locked up forever.
Dealing with those in the middle is the difficult bit. We need to spend more time preparing prisoners for life outside, train them in a trade or further study and work with employers so that they can come out to a job - which makes them orders of magnitude less likely to end up back inside. Unfortunately this requires more prisons and more money, as well as a change in attitude from the employers. I believe Timpson has a scheme whereby they take on ex-cons as cobblers and key cutters, but very few other companies do.
A local spark near me was the first to be convicted of murder on the double jeopardy rule as 4 years after his acqulital of murdering a old lady in her home (as there was no evidence) his DNA was suddenly found on the ladies blouse in a evidence bag that had been cut. Mention DNA and the jury will always found someone guilty as they think it is perfect evidence which these days it is not as the technology has moved on so much they can pick up even the tiniest amounts of DNA. That may sound good but if you handle a bank note, hand it to someone else and they, using the same hand, pick up a knife and kill someone, your DNA will be on that knife.
I always though that in Murder cases the burden of proof had to be so high yet these are the cases which often have the least evidence because the police need a conviction to satisfy the press/public demands.
Edited extra bit: Mrs C, sacre bleu!
In reality, though, I am totally opposed to what any reintroduction would mean in practice. To minimise miscarriages I would necessarily expect long lead times for executions with lots of expensive process, as in America. Worse still, with our press, I would expect those processes to drive celebritisation and, indeed, more copycatting of our most notorious killers. That this sickening spectacle would be whipped up to titilate the outrage mostly of those very advocates of the death penalty would be abhorrent.
'No, thanks' from me.
Shame she wasn’t listened to.
Why not make it here right now? We wouldn’t have to take you on your word, you would actually prove it.
Just imagine you are on QT and the question comes up.
The mics yours.
https://twitter.com/AnasSarwar/status/1047883087114391552
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1047883559581745153
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1047888781049843712
Only Ken Clarke of the Tory contenders got a better Tory voteshare tested against Labour than IDS did.
Boris if he gets to the membership will likely win it but that is a big if and of course May could remain in post for years anyway
But I note I said this, and no ones questioned it, so this is all accepted true then:
Hunt is so beta-male he makes Millifandom look like Bacchanalia.
Javid is Nosferatu voiced by Amy Poehler. Either of those plays straight into hands of Labour, Hunts NHS record, and, well it’s established fact of all politics, no hair, no chance. If you have any doubt what I am saying, the smoking gun is their conference speeches, Javid declaring war on hope, Hunt channeling his inner Boris and making the biggest gaff of the entire rally.
I also suggested Patel should be in the running, but that bit has been Knocked around a bit. It’s like I said something beyond the pale even for this site.
America - two countries within one nation.
"A group representing 100,000 congregations and 45 million churchgoers across an array of Christian denominations in the U.S. has called for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be withdrawn."
- http://fortune.com/2018/10/03/national-council-of-churches-demands-kavanaugh-withdraw/