If these 305 individuals — whose full personal data is available in the automobile registration database consulted by Bellingcat — are indeed officers or otherwise affiliated with the GRU’s Military United 26165, their listing in a publicly accessible database may constitute one of the largest mass breaches of personal data of an intelligence service in recent history.
If these 305 individuals — whose full personal data is available in the automobile registration database consulted by Bellingcat — are indeed officers or otherwise affiliated with the GRU’s Military United 26165, their listing in a publicly accessible database may constitute one of the largest mass breaches of personal data of an intelligence service in recent history.
If these 305 individuals — whose full personal data is available in the automobile registration database consulted by Bellingcat — are indeed officers or otherwise affiliated with the GRU’s Military United 26165, their listing in a publicly accessible database may constitute one of the largest mass breaches of personal data of an intelligence service in recent history.
Suspect the secret service will be annoyed that this source of information has been rendered null and void.
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.
Sure:
"Ian Hislop has done some great work in uncovering miscarriages of justice, and we should all grateful for the work his magazine has done. And he is right in another way too: when blood is up, around some terrorist outrage, that is the time when it is easiest to come to too quick decisions, and mistakes are made.
If the death penalty is to be reintroduced we need to make sure it has the greatest possible safeguards. We need to accept that while a life sentence can be reversed, the death penalty cannot. The sheer gravity of the punishment should weigh on everyone involved. We cannot allow mistakes to happen, and that's why, I would propose setting up an automatic committee made up of law enforcement officers and senior members of the judiciary that reviews each and every death penalty decision - looking for ways in which convictions could be unsafe. The work that Ian Hislop has done, we would look to extend and institutionalise it.
But enough about safeguards. Let's talk about why, in the most heinous of cases, the death penalty is morally right and just. Society needs to have a deterrent that goes beyond another day in a comfortable cell watching daytime TV. There needs to be an incentive to a kidnapper to know that if he steps over the boundary into murder, then there will be consequences to that action. There are people so terrible, and so evil, that they can never be rehabilitated, and their debt to society cannot ever be repaid. And let us not forget that beyond deterrence and rehabilitition, the justice system plays another important role: that of retribution on behalf of society for the wrongs inflicted on victims. For that reason, we need to have the ultimate penalty for the most heionous and evil of crimes."
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.
Robbery is certainly a violent offence. Serious fraud is the biggest grey area though, there will undoubtedly be cases as you suggest with aggravating circumstances where nothing except a custodial sentence is appropriate. Convicted fraudsters should be liquidated and bankrupted, left with nothing but a few months’ rent in a small flat.
The problem that needs addressing, and it’s a difficult one to argue for, is that the reoffending rate of released prisoners is very high, and otherwise sensible people who screwed up one night end up losing jobs and networking with the serious criminals while inside, leading to ruined lives that the state has to deal with.
I’d like to see expansion of weekend prisons and technological house arrest that allows convicts to stay employed where possible. Also split community work 50/50 where someone has a useful skill, so for example a footballer can spend half his time picking litter in the park, and the other half coaching the local state school’s U13 team. Win-win.
One last thing that also doesn’t get mentioned. Mental health. A huge number of prisoners have mental health issues that just don’t get dealt with seriously because there isn’t the capacity. We don’t need to expand Broadmoor and Carstairs but more MH councellors are definitely needed.
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."
Blimey, turns out "Unilad" isn't just a chap at a university: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45744028 More seriously, surprised it needs over 200 people to post facebook vids
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!
If Foot had won in 1983!
Mrs Thatcher was pro-EU membership, and pro both Single Market and EU expansion to the old Iron Curtain countries.
Blimey, turns out "Unilad" isn't just a chap at a university: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45744028 More seriously, surprised it needs over 200 people to post facebook vids
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
what's a partial exit? the car manufacturers are a special case but it's pretty obvious financial isntitutions are shifting *just* enough jobs abroad to make Frankfurt, Paris or Warsaw their home. And that's not many
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."
Donald J Trump won white women by nine percentage points in 2016. He won college educated white women by twelve.
Those two groups believe Ford by large margins, and are not keen on the Kavanaugh pick.
I would believe Ms Ford before I would believe Kavanaugh. I found his performance unconvincing and I agree with the analyses that say he evades direct questions and "shoots" the questioner. In the past I have found people use those techniques because they have something to hide so I suspect that Mr Kavanaugh does as well.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
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.
When the investigation won't interview either the alleged attacker or victim it's an objectively terrible investigation.
I dont know why you carry so much water for Kavanaugh. What attracts you to the privileged, violent drunk accused of multiple counts of sexual assault?
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
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.
When the investigation won't interview either the alleged attacker or victim it's an objectively terrible investigation.
I dont know why you carry so much water for Kavanaugh. What attracts you to the privileged, violent drunk accused of multiple counts of sexual assault?
I have no interest or involvement in Kavanaugh beyond the fact that he has faced allegations in an unfair and heavily political way. Dr Ford has been exploited. It has been shameful.
I have said over and over again that I have no idea as to the truth. But the process has not been just and that sets a dreadful precedent.
Tbh when I met and spoke to Anas Sarwar during Better Together he struck me as a bit of an empty suit, charming but shallow. But that is absolutely no way to treat your spokesperson or frankly any human being. Labour are moving from invisible to downright unpleasant. Wonder where their leader could have got ideas like that from.
Blimey, turns out "Unilad" isn't just a chap at a university: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45744028 More seriously, surprised it needs over 200 people to post facebook vids
Turns out, they didn't.
I never knew that they were a "News Publisher". I thought they just did daft videos.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
The vote will be on the transition period and withdrawal agreement only, with citizens rights and the exit bill already paid the only thing that needs resolving for that is the Irish backstop and May's move towards a Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found largely mirrors Labour's policy anyway. The Deal and Chequers will then be negotiated on in the transition.
If Labour MPs are so stupid as to almost all vote down the Withdrawal Agreement and transition deal by voting with the ERG and Mogg and Boris and risking No Deal if I were May I would call a snap general election and this time I think she really would get her landslide, after all she would be the only person who had negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and Labour had clearly put petty party politics ahead of the needs of the country
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Collins and Murkowski cannot seriously believe Kavanaugh won’t vote to overturn Roe v Wade. I almost sense neither really care about this particular issue, for Collins passing herself off as a ‘moderate’ Republican is a way to hold her seat.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
The vote will be on the transition period and withdrawal agreement only, with citizens rights and the exit bill already paid the only thing that needs resolving for that is the Irish backstop and May's move towards a Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found largely mirrors Labour's policy anyway. The Deal and Chequers will then be negotiated on in the transition.
If Labour MPs are so stupid as to almost all vote down the Withdrawal Agreement and transition deal by voting with the ERG and Mogg and Boris and risking No Deal if I were May I would call a snap general election and this time I think she really would get her landslide, after all she would be the only person who had negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and Labour had clearly put petty party politics ahead of the needs of the country
You can make your case as you do but 'shouting at fellow posters' is not a good look.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fashion, they should at least not be an idiot and get angry at something they themselves just did. It's certainly not something I like to do, and were I as resolute as Big_G I would not respond in kind, but that was seriously among the silliest reasons to get all ALLCAPS patronising about that I have seen in a long time, when it was his own comment I was referring to - I could not quite believe my eyes someone could be so silly in shooting their own superior attitude in the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
The vote will be on the transition period and withdrawal agreement only, with citizens rights and the exit bill already paid the only thing that needs resolving for that is the Irish backstop and May's move towards a Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found largely mirrors Labour's policy anyway. The Deal and Chequers will then be negotiated on in the transition.
If Labour MPs are so stupid as to almost all vote down the Withdrawal Agreement and transition deal by voting with the ERG and Mogg and Boris and risking No Deal if I were May I would call a snap general election and this time I think she really would get her landslide, after all she would be the only person who had negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and Labour had clearly put petty party politics ahead of the needs of the country
‘the only thing that needs resolving is the Irish backstop’
Someone earlier said May is convinced the choice is now between Norway (plus customs union in reality) and no deal. She’s right.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
I can feel your anger and maybe Hyufd would be wise to bead my post.
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."
Donald J Trump won white women by nine percentage points in 2016. He won college educated white women by twelve.
Those two groups believe Ford by large margins, and are not keen on the Kavanaugh pick.
Will the Republicans really care about this? At the end of the day for them it’s about packing the courts and being able to set agenda whether they are in power or not, with or without popular support. If anything, seeing how some of the aspects of their agenda aren’t so popular (Roe v Wade) it is imperative for them to get their preferred judges on the court now so it simply no longer matters what many Americans want.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fashion, they should at least not be an idiot and get angry at something they themselves just did.
Ah that's OK then.
Your normally one of the more laid-back posters on here!
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fashion, they should at least not be an idiot and get angry at something they themselves just did. It's certainly not something I like to do, and were I as resolute as Big_G I would not respond in kind, but that was seriously among the silliest reasons to get all ALLCAPS patronising about that I have seen in a long time, when it was his own comment I was referring to - I could not quite believe my eyes someone could be so silly in shooting their own superior attitude in the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
A transition period is merely a period in which a final deal can be negotiated, it is not a final trade deal.
That is absolutely certain and I stand absolutely by everything I wrote, the average swing voter will not accept Labour voting down a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and risking Car Crash Brexit for nothing but petty party politics
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
A transition period is merely a period in which a final deal can be negotiated, it is not a final trade deal.
That is absolutely certain and I stand absolutely by everything I wrote, the average swing voter will not accept Labour voting down a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and risking Car Crash Brexit for nothing but petty party politics
They won’t see it that way. They’ll see it as the Tories are too hopeless to deliver Brexit; let’s give the other lot a go.
Saying whatever+ is bad, saying whatever++ is ghastly, and saying whatever+++ is just risible.
The origin of the ++ thing is I presume C++, and there it's a self-referential joke.
The Tusk's and Davis' of this world that use such nonsense are simply a bit childish - it's "million, million, billion zillion" territory.
Tusk is just childish.
He is a very poor diplomat and anyone who thinks showing a tray of cakes without cherries to a female British PM while surrounded with a cohort of men, and someone who is a diabetic, is simply not fit for purpose
Long term, SCOTUS is more important than say winning the Senate. That can come and go - the SCOTUS seats are there for life. Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh will almost always be voting as a block now on the (very) conservative side. Roberts becomes the deciding vote, whilst he isn't as ideologically conservative as the afore mentioned four, he is certainly a conservative.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
I can feel your anger and maybe Hyufd would be wise to bead my post.
Shouting is unnecessary
Sometimes a more forceful response is needed to get a point across, in my view that was one of them
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fashion, they should at least not be an idiot and get angry at something they themselves just did. It's certainly not something I like to do, and were I as resolute as Big_G I would not respond in kind, but that was seriously among the silliest reasons to get all ALLCAPS patronising about that I have seen in a long time, when it was his own comment I was referring to - I could not quite believe my eyes someone could be so silly in shooting their own superior attitude in the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
£11 at 4-9, placed literally just before Flake asked for the extra week Also on Tester (D) in MT for the senate, 538's model showed him with an increased chance over the odds..
Saying whatever+ is bad, saying whatever++ is ghastly, and saying whatever+++ is just risible.
The origin of the ++ thing is I presume C++, and there it's a self-referential joke.
The Tusk's and Davis' of this world that use such nonsense are simply a bit childish - it's "million, million, billion zillion" territory.
Tusk is just childish.
He is a very poor diplomat and anyone who thinks showing a tray of cakes without cherries to a female British PM while surrounded with a cohort of men, and someone who is a diabetic, is simply not fit for purpose
Tusk doesn’t like it up him
He used to be viewed as the sensible one. He’s actually got quite poor judgment.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
The vote will be on the transition period and withdrawal agreement only, with citizens rights and the exit bill already paid the only thing that needs resolving for that is the Irish backstop and May's move towards a Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found largely mirrors Labour's policy anyway. The Deal and Chequers will then be negotiated on in the transition.
If Labour MPs are so stupid as to almost all vote down the Withdrawal Agreement and transition deal by voting with the ERG and Mogg and Boris and risking No Deal if I were May I would call a snap general election and this time I think she really would get her landslide, after all she would be the only person who had negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and Labour had clearly put petty party politics ahead of the needs of the country
‘the only thing that needs resolving is the Irish backstop’
Someone earlier said May is convinced the choice is now between Norway (plus customs union in reality) and no deal. She’s right.
Referendum time.
To get the transition deal and Withdrawal Agreement yes, though technically you can still control FOM etc with a customs union
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
I can feel your anger and maybe Hyufd would be wise to bead my post.
Shouting is unnecessary
Sometimes a more forceful response is needed to get a point across, in my view that was one of them
No it was not and you provoked an immediate angry response.
I hope you do not want to be seen as hectoring and arrogant but that was my immediate reaction.
Kle4 is a very interesting poster on here and deserves respect even if you do not agree with him
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
A transition period is merely a period in which a final deal can be negotiated, it is not a final trade deal.
That is absolutely certain and I stand absolutely by everything I wrote, the average swing voter will not accept Labour voting down a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and risking Car Crash Brexit for nothing but petty party politics
They won’t see it that way. They’ll see it as the Tories are too hopeless to deliver Brexit; let’s give the other lot a go.
No, given Labour would have nothing to offer any different to the Tories on the transition bar playing political games with the economy and the ERG will still be in the Tory camp anyway I would expect a big swing against Labour
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fashion, they should at least not be an idiot and get angry at something they themselves just did. It's certainly not something I like to do, and were I as resolute as Big_G I would not respond in kind, but that was seriously among the silliest reasons to get all ALLCAPS patronising about that I have seen in a long time, when it was his own comment I was referring to - I could not quite believe my eyes someone could be so silly in shooting their own superior attitude in the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
I can feel your anger and maybe Hyufd would be wise to bead my post.
Shouting is unnecessary
Sometimes a more forceful response is needed to get a point across, in my view that was one of them
No it was not and you provoked an immediate angry response.
I hope you do not want to be seen as hectoring and arrogant but that was my immediate reaction.
Kle4 is a very interesting poster on here and deserves respect even if you do not agree with him
I agree. HY's faux certainty on the unpredictable future can be extremely irritating at times, as can his lack of self awareness.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
I say we nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Ruth Davidson next Scot First Minister would upset Malc somewhat
An event that not a soul on this site would be willing to put cold, hard cash on happening.
Malc can save his spleen for other stuff.
Err. Malcolm offered me a fun bet the other day and I took him up on it.
Missed that, how much is fun?
Corals are offering 5/1 on Ruthy & 6/1 on Dickie for next FM, a touch humiliating for the former I'd say. For guidance Johann was around 4/1 for next FM before she walked.
Long term, SCOTUS is more important than say winning the Senate. That can come and go - the SCOTUS seats are there for life. Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh will almost always be voting as a block now on the (very) conservative side. Roberts becomes the deciding vote, whilst he isn't as ideologically conservative as the afore mentioned four, he is certainly a conservative.
If I were a Dem/Liberal I'd be praying for the continued health of Ginsburg and Breyer.
It isn't hard to envisage the SC having a 6-3 or 7-2 bias to the conservative wing for the next 30 years.
The 14th and 15th amendments would be in danger of being severely restricted.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Brexit's getting to us all. I say nuke the East Coast and be done with it
I say we nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure
You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt!
Long term, SCOTUS is more important than say winning the Senate. That can come and go - the SCOTUS seats are there for life. Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh will almost always be voting as a block now on the (very) conservative side. Roberts becomes the deciding vote, whilst he isn't as ideologically conservative as the afore mentioned four, he is certainly a conservative.
If I were a Dem/Liberal I'd be praying for the continued health of Ginsburg and Breyer.
It isn't hard to envisage the SC having a 6-3 or 7-2 bias to the conservative wing for the next 30 years.
The 14th and 15th amendments would be in danger of being severely restricted.
Those two are 85 and 80. As well as making the next Presidential election particularly important it makes these Senate elections important too.
I can't imagine how angry I'd be at the Republicans if I was an American for their treatment of Obama and his final Supreme Court pick. It was outrageous. The Democrats never seem able to fight as hard back.
Well it is not as though the government is not trying to avoid it, they just don't have the votes - Labour rebels are the only ones who could save it.
In reality they do have the votes, only about 100 out of 318 Tory MPs are ERG members and enough Labour MPs will vote for a transition deal even if not Chequers which will be negotiated in the transition period anyway
You are far more confident of that than I am - I just don't see enough Labour MPs defying what is sure to be the whip in support of a Tory government deal on anything to counter however many ERG eventually vote against. They've rebelled in large numbers before, and the government has no way of winning unless that happens, but I don't see it.
For the umpteenth time THIS IS NOT THE VOTE ON THE DEAL.
READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST WHICH REFERS TO 'WILL VOTE FOR A TRANSITION DEAL', THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY A 'DEAL ON ANYTHING', ANYTHING INCLUDING A TRANSITION DEAL.
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
Are you OK Kle4?
Merely responding in kind. If someone wants to get all ALLCAPS when high handedly correcting someone in patronising fash the foot.
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
If you really cannot cope with forceful expression (not personally rude) on this blog then I suggest you take a break
That is wholly unjust. Grow up
It was not me swearing in my post, is all I will say, if some people cannot handle a more forceful expression (not personally rude), tough
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 was hastened
(Although that implies it was inevitable at some point)
Comments
Ruth Davidson next Scot First Minister would upset Malc somewhat
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1047889791516385280
If these 305 individuals — whose full personal data is available in the automobile registration database consulted by Bellingcat — are indeed officers or otherwise affiliated with the GRU’s Military United 26165, their listing in a publicly accessible database may constitute one of the largest mass breaches of personal data of an intelligence service in recent history.
Time to take action against their oligarch finances big time
Malc can save his spleen for other stuff.
"Ian Hislop has done some great work in uncovering miscarriages of justice, and we should all grateful for the work his magazine has done. And he is right in another way too: when blood is up, around some terrorist outrage, that is the time when it is easiest to come to too quick decisions, and mistakes are made.
If the death penalty is to be reintroduced we need to make sure it has the greatest possible safeguards. We need to accept that while a life sentence can be reversed, the death penalty cannot. The sheer gravity of the punishment should weigh on everyone involved. We cannot allow mistakes to happen, and that's why, I would propose setting up an automatic committee made up of law enforcement officers and senior members of the judiciary that reviews each and every death penalty decision - looking for ways in which convictions could be unsafe. The work that Ian Hislop has done, we would look to extend and institutionalise it.
But enough about safeguards. Let's talk about why, in the most heinous of cases, the death penalty is morally right and just. Society needs to have a deterrent that goes beyond another day in a comfortable cell watching daytime TV. There needs to be an incentive to a kidnapper to know that if he steps over the boundary into murder, then there will be consequences to that action. There are people so terrible, and so evil, that they can never be rehabilitated, and their debt to society cannot ever be repaid. And let us not forget that beyond deterrence and rehabilitition, the justice system plays another important role: that of retribution on behalf of society for the wrongs inflicted on victims. For that reason, we need to have the ultimate penalty for the most heionous and evil of crimes."
The problem that needs addressing, and it’s a difficult one to argue for, is that the reoffending rate of released prisoners is very high, and otherwise sensible people who screwed up one night end up losing jobs and networking with the serious criminals while inside, leading to ruined lives that the state has to deal with.
I’d like to see expansion of weekend prisons and technological house arrest that allows convicts to stay employed where possible. Also split community work 50/50 where someone has a useful skill, so for example a footballer can spend half his time picking litter in the park, and the other half coaching the local state school’s U13 team. Win-win.
One last thing that also doesn’t get mentioned. Mental health. A huge number of prisoners have mental health issues that just don’t get dealt with seriously because there isn’t the capacity. We don’t need to expand Broadmoor and Carstairs but more MH councellors are definitely needed.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1047891187947003904
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1047896247837843456
Those two groups believe Ford by large margins, and are not keen on the Kavanaugh pick.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1047898008371847170
'Talent'!
It's all relative I suppose.
More seriously, surprised it needs over 200 people to post facebook vids
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1047903710389534720
Mrs Thatcher was pro-EU membership, and pro both Single Market and EU expansion to the old Iron Curtain countries.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1047870657005047811
https://twitter.com/williamnhutton/status/1047776895939620864
I dont know why you carry so much water for Kavanaugh. What attracts you to the privileged, violent drunk accused of multiple counts of sexual assault?
I have said over and over again that I have no idea as to the truth. But the process has not been just and that sets a dreadful precedent.
Tbh when I met and spoke to Anas Sarwar during Better Together he struck me as a bit of an empty suit, charming but shallow. But that is absolutely no way to treat your spokesperson or frankly any human being. Labour are moving from invisible to downright unpleasant. Wonder where their leader could have got ideas like that from.
Which might give the politicians a few pointers.
I’m probably barking up the wrong tree, though.
The vote will be on the transition period and withdrawal agreement only, with citizens rights and the exit bill already paid the only thing that needs resolving for that is the Irish backstop and May's move towards a Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found largely mirrors Labour's policy anyway. The Deal and Chequers will then be negotiated on in the transition.
If Labour MPs are so stupid as to almost all vote down the Withdrawal Agreement and transition deal by voting with the ERG and Mogg and Boris and risking No Deal if I were May I would call a snap general election and this time I think she really would get her landslide, after all she would be the only person who had negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and Labour had clearly put petty party politics ahead of the needs of the country
Though perhaps that’s sufficient apawling puns.
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1047909785104990209
So screw you - if you don't want me to call a vote on the transition a deal, don't refer to it yourself as a f*cking 'transition deal'.
Apparently your pig headed certainty on absolutely everything and not allowing for loose, colloquial terminology is so strong you forget what you yourself have just f*cking written
https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/1047829041842204672
Are you OK Kle4?
The origin of the ++ thing is I presume C++, and there it's a self-referential joke.
The Tusk's and Davis' of this world that use such nonsense are simply a bit childish - it's "million, million, billion zillion" territory.
Hectoring and arrogant comes to mind
And believe me, I know all about undermining one's own superior attitude.
Edit: But it is probably a good sign to call it quits for the day. Although seriously, calling people out for linguistic inexactitude is hardly strong anyway, and do so entirely incorrectly?!
Someone earlier said May is convinced the choice is now between Norway (plus customs union in reality) and no deal. She’s right.
Referendum time.
Shouting is unnecessary
Your normally one of the more laid-back posters on here!
That is absolutely certain and I stand absolutely by everything I wrote, the average swing voter will not accept Labour voting down a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and risking Car Crash Brexit for nothing but petty party politics
He is a very poor diplomat and anyone who thinks showing a tray of cakes without cherries to a female British PM while surrounded with a cohort of men, and someone who is a diabetic, is simply not fit for purpose
The backlash will be fierce.
I went through a phase of programming BCPL once. That was a hoot
Also on Tester (D) in MT for the senate, 538's model showed him with an increased chance over the odds..
He used to be viewed as the sensible one. He’s actually got quite poor judgment.
I hope you do not want to be seen as hectoring and arrogant but that was my immediate reaction.
Kle4 is a very interesting poster on here and deserves respect even if you do not agree with him
Corals are offering 5/1 on Ruthy & 6/1 on Dickie for next FM, a touch humiliating for the former I'd say. For guidance Johann was around 4/1 for next FM before she walked.
It isn't hard to envisage the SC having a 6-3 or 7-2 bias to the conservative wing for the next 30 years.
The 14th and 15th amendments would be in danger of being severely restricted.
Uh, no offense.
I can't imagine how angry I'd be at the Republicans if I was an American for their treatment of Obama and his final Supreme Court pick. It was outrageous. The Democrats never seem able to fight as hard back.
(Although that implies it was inevitable at some point)