See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
You would have thought so but this is a proposal by a Dutch Government Scientist which requires 2 dams to completely enclose the north sea
Lol I thought it was Boris' latest megaspend plan. Would turn the North sea into the North Lake lol.
You would be able to drive from the UK to France or Norway over the dams so no need for ferries
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
No more so than without the dams.
I posted this story on the Boris Bridge thread, and no one noticed. It's not an entirely fanciful project in engineering terms, but the changes of its ever being built are approximately zero.
Bit like the Boris Bridge, but with a true grandiosity of vision.
And it would give generations of Casinos something to do after Parliament is rebuilt...
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to builld to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Being proposed by someone who says it would be "disastrous" to do as it will turn the sea into a lake.
Well, you could make a mighty fuck off big tidal lagoon that would power a chunk of Europe....
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
You would have thought so but this is a proposal by a Dutch Government Scientist which requires 2 dams to completely enclose the north sea
Lol I thought it was Boris' latest megaspend plan. Would turn the North sea into the North Lake lol.
Mind you, the judgement in the 'transphobic tweet' case doesn't address this:
The College of Policing’s guidance defines a transgender hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.
We really do need to get rid of this sort of garbage, defining a hate crime as something which doesn't depend to even the slightest degree on whether the perception is well-founded.
Absolutely. Maybe record it as a complaint instead - complaints can be founded and unfounded but calling it a "hate incident" implies it was well-founded.
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
You would have thought so but this is a proposal by a Dutch Government Scientist which requires 2 dams to completely enclose the north sea
Lol I thought it was Boris' latest megaspend plan. Would turn the North sea into the North Lake lol.
You would be able to drive from the UK to France or Norway over the dams so no need for ferries
You'd end up at the wrong end of France from the wrong end of the UK for much transport though so ferries/the tunnel would remain popular.
Though in the extraordinarily unlikely event of this happening a bridge would become much more plausible.
Mind you, the judgement in the 'transphobic tweet' case doesn't address this:
The College of Policing’s guidance defines a transgender hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.
We really do need to get rid of this sort of garbage, defining a hate crime as something which doesn't depend to even the slightest degree on whether the perception is well-founded.
Absolutely. Maybe record it as a complaint instead - complaints can be founded and unfounded but calling it a "hate incident" implies it was well-founded.
I seem to recall similar concerns in the Henriques report about using victim rather than complainant, before there had even been an assessment of if someone was indeed a victim.
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to builld to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Being proposed by someone who says it would be "disastrous" to do as it will turn the sea into a lake.
Well, you could make a mighty fuck off big tidal lagoon that would power a chunk of Europe....
Mind you, the judgement in the 'transphobic tweet' case doesn't address this:
The College of Policing’s guidance defines a transgender hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.
We really do need to get rid of this sort of garbage, defining a hate crime as something which doesn't depend to even the slightest degree on whether the perception is well-founded.
The judge does deal with this and indeed his finding that the policy was lawful was expressly based on the fact that the police could still use their common sense:
"it seems to me that this approach does not exclude that there must, on the facts narrated by a complainant, be some rational basis for concluding that there is a hate element. Suppose, for example, that a fat and bald straight non-trans man is walking home from work down his quiet residential street when abuse is shouted at him from a passing car to the effect that he is fat and bald. If that person went to the police and said the abuse were based on hostility because of transgender it cannot be the case that HCOG would require it to be recorded as such as a non-crime hate incident when there is nothing in the facts which remotely begins to suggest that was any connection with that protected strand. Vitally important though the purposes which HCOG serves undoubtedly are, it does not require the police to leave common sense wholly out of account when deciding whether to record what is or is not a non-crime hate incident.
...
206. For these reasons, I conclude that the use of complainant perception in defining non-crime hate incidents does not contravene the requirement of foreseeability. Overall, the perception based approach in HCOG does not, in my judgment, confer a discretion so broad that it depends on the will of those who apply it, on the whim of those who may report incidents, nor are its terms so broadly defined as to produce the same effect in practice: In re Gallagher, supra, [17]."
The EU is not obliged to sign up to terms that Britain would find convenient.
While a distinct minority would be prepared to eat grass rather than compromise with the EU, it remains a distinct minority.
You are so predictable in your love of the EU and dislike of brexit but I fully expect this Boris government will exit the EU on WTO if necessary and there will be some years of angst on both sides
I expressed neither love of the EU nor dislike of Brexit in that post. Just cold hard fact.
As it happens, the EU might be well-advised to make some moves towards Britain, just as you try to talk down a lunatic cavorting on a ledge. But that's far from compulsory.
There are no cold hard facts in this process.
I expect UK to do well in the future and outperform France and Germany
You started by asserting that the EU has to recognsise Britain's position. It doesn't.
If it does not move away from wanting to damage the UK economic interests then a complete fracture will happen damaging everyones interests
Britain is a lot smaller than the EU. Of course the EU is going to use its heft in ways that Britain dislikes. That was an inevitable part of Britain deciding that "we" excluded "them".
You think Britain is going to get better treatment from the USA or China than it will get from the EU? Newsflash: it won't. Volunteering to become more isolated in a world of power blocs is so so dumb. The strong do as they please, the weak suffer what they must. Britain has chosen to become an object of verbs rather than a subject.
You have your views and it is fair to say other views are available
Now that the government has adopted the North Korean model as its preferred approach to Brexit, I guess we'll all just have to get used to juche and stirring pictures of Boris Johnson riding a horse up a mountain.
North Korean? You are hardly likely to be taken into Downing Street and executed with an anti-aircraft gun...
Cummings is probably measuring the Downing St garden to see if there's room for one as we speak.
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to builld to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Being proposed by someone who says it would be "disastrous" to do as it will turn the sea into a lake.
Well, you could make a mighty fuck off big tidal lagoon that would power a chunk of Europe....
Wonder what sort of power you could generate with two dams that size. Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, France could all benefit from it.
"When the longest serving member of cabinet is Liz Truss it really does make you ask “Is that all you’ve got?”. It is a really poor cabinet. All cabinets are eloquent about the people who assemble them and Mr Cummings and Mr Johnson, for their different reasons, have chosen a weak team."
Another poll showing Sanders as the Dem candidate polling best against Trump. This time 2 behind in Texas, which is admittedly unlikely to be the tipping point state, but there's been a bunch of recent polls showing Sanders as at least no worse than any other likely candidate.
So why are so many people saying that Democrats would be crazy to choose Sanders instead of - who? The comparison with Corbyn is also not valid, as Corbyn pretty much always polled really really badly.
Probably the worst outcome for Dems would be if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates but no majority, and then the convention chooses someone Sanders beat in the actual primaries. Bloomberg makes this quite a likely situation. But it always felt like his second choice (after Bloomberg becoming president) was always Trump winning again, no wonder a majority of Dems don't like the guy.
Bloomberg is spending $millions attacking Trump. He isn't attacking any of his Democrat competitors. It feels personal against Trump.
Bloomberg knows that attacking Trump is all he's got that appeals to Democrat voters.
There may well be personal animosity between them, which is one of the reasons Bloomberg enjoys having Trump as president - it makes him look good in comparison to Trump, and makes him more relevant on the national stage.
But this soap opera about which billionaire is the biggest pantomime villain is just a distraction from taking the necessary action on the biggest crises of our time (global overheating and inequality, I reckon).
Bloomberg is going to have to decide whether or not to debate ahead of Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't see that going particularly well for him.
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
You would have thought so but this is a proposal by a Dutch Government Scientist which requires 2 dams to completely enclose the north sea
Lol I thought it was Boris' latest megaspend plan. Would turn the North sea into the North Lake lol.
All that, just to save Withernsea from falling into the sea?
Mind you, the judgement in the 'transphobic tweet' case doesn't address this:
The College of Policing’s guidance defines a transgender hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.
We really do need to get rid of this sort of garbage, defining a hate crime as something which doesn't depend to even the slightest degree on whether the perception is well-founded.
The judge does deal with this and indeed his finding that the policy was lawful was expressly based on the fact that the police could still use their common sense:
"it seems to me that this approach does not exclude that there must, on the facts narrated by a complainant, be some rational basis for concluding that there is a hate element. Suppose, for example, that a fat and bald straight non-trans man is walking home from work down his quiet residential street when abuse is shouted at him from a passing car to the effect that he is fat and bald. If that person went to the police and said the abuse were based on hostility because of transgender it cannot be the case that HCOG would require it to be recorded as such as a non-crime hate incident when there is nothing in the facts which remotely begins to suggest that was any connection with that protected strand. Vitally important though the purposes which HCOG serves undoubtedly are, it does not require the police to leave common sense wholly out of account when deciding whether to record what is or is not a non-crime hate incident.
...
206. For these reasons, I conclude that the use of complainant perception in defining non-crime hate incidents does not contravene the requirement of foreseeability. Overall, the perception based approach in HCOG does not, in my judgment, confer a discretion so broad that it depends on the will of those who apply it, on the whim of those who may report incidents, nor are its terms so broadly defined as to produce the same effect in practice: In re Gallagher, supra, [17]."
Well that's not what the definition says, but if the learned judge is right that that's what it means, then it would be very sensible to amend it to make that clear to police officers who have to act on it. Adding a single 'reasonably' would do the trick.
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
No more so than without the dams.
I posted this story on the Boris Bridge thread, and no one noticed. It's not an entirely fanciful project in engineering terms, but the changes of its ever being built are approximately zero.
Bit like the Boris Bridge, but with a true grandiosity of vision.
And it would give generations of Casinos something to do after Parliament is rebuilt...
I suppose it might raise the sea level outside the Eurolake minimally, but yes, we west coasters are probably fcuked either way. There'd be a bonus of all Europe's shipped export points being situated in the West, though the ports would probably be situated half way up the Clyde Valley and in Manchester by that point
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to builld to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Being proposed by someone who says it would be "disastrous" to do as it will turn the sea into a lake.
Well, you could make a mighty fuck off big tidal lagoon that would power a chunk of Europe....
Wonder what sort of power you could generate with two dams that size. Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, France could all benefit from it.
By the time they were done, we'd have cracked fusion a couple of decades back.
"When the longest serving member of cabinet is Liz Truss it really does make you ask “Is that all you’ve got?”. It is a really poor cabinet. All cabinets are eloquent about the people who assemble them and Mr Cummings and Mr Johnson, for their different reasons, have chosen a weak team."
That's not correct. As I mentioned last night. Truss was demoted to Chief Sec for a while and only attending cabinet. Baroness Evans is the longest serving
Mind you, the judgement in the 'transphobic tweet' case doesn't address this:
The College of Policing’s guidance defines a transgender hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.
We really do need to get rid of this sort of garbage, defining a hate crime as something which doesn't depend to even the slightest degree on whether the perception is well-founded.
Trouble is, extend that to other issues, such as antisemitism, then perhaps the lines become a bit more blurry. See for instance the discussion at the start of this thread about whether it is antisemitic to portray Dominic Cummings as Boris's puppetmaster.
Another poll showing Sanders as the Dem candidate polling best against Trump. This time 2 behind in Texas, which is admittedly unlikely to be the tipping point state, but there's been a bunch of recent polls showing Sanders as at least no worse than any other likely candidate.
So why are so many people saying that Democrats would be crazy to choose Sanders instead of - who? The comparison with Corbyn is also not valid, as Corbyn pretty much always polled really really badly.
Probably the worst outcome for Dems would be if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates but no majority, and then the convention chooses someone Sanders beat in the actual primaries. Bloomberg makes this quite a likely situation. But it always felt like his second choice (after Bloomberg becoming president) was always Trump winning again, no wonder a majority of Dems don't like the guy.
Bloomberg is spending $millions attacking Trump. He isn't attacking any of his Democrat competitors. It feels personal against Trump.
Bloomberg knows that attacking Trump is all he's got that appeals to Democrat voters.
There may well be personal animosity between them, which is one of the reasons Bloomberg enjoys having Trump as president - it makes him look good in comparison to Trump, and makes him more relevant on the national stage.
But this soap opera about which billionaire is the biggest pantomime villain is just a distraction from taking the necessary action on the biggest crises of our time (global overheating and inequality, I reckon).
Bloomberg is going to have to decide whether or not to debate ahead of Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't see that going particularly well for him.
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
Sanders will be slaughtered if he is nominee.
"crazy socialist" Bernie, who honeymooned in Soviet Union?
Trouble is, extend that to other issues, such as antisemitism, then perhaps the lines become a bit more blurry. See for instance the discussion at the start of this thread about whether it is antisemitic to portray Dominic Cummings as Boris's puppetmaster.
Another poll showing Sanders as the Dem candidate polling best against Trump. This time 2 behind in Texas, which is admittedly unlikely to be the tipping point state, but there's been a bunch of recent polls showing Sanders as at least no worse than any other likely candidate.
So why are so many people saying that Democrats would be crazy to choose Sanders instead of - who? The comparison with Corbyn is also not valid, as Corbyn pretty much always polled really really badly.
Probably the worst outcome for Dems would be if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates but no majority, and then the convention chooses someone Sanders beat in the actual primaries. Bloomberg makes this quite a likely situation. But it always felt like his second choice (after Bloomberg becoming president) was always Trump winning again, no wonder a majority of Dems don't like the guy.
Bloomberg is spending $millions attacking Trump. He isn't attacking any of his Democrat competitors. It feels personal against Trump.
Bloomberg knows that attacking Trump is all he's got that appeals to Democrat voters.
There may well be personal animosity between them, which is one of the reasons Bloomberg enjoys having Trump as president - it makes him look good in comparison to Trump, and makes him more relevant on the national stage.
But this soap opera about which billionaire is the biggest pantomime villain is just a distraction from taking the necessary action on the biggest crises of our time (global overheating and inequality, I reckon).
Bloomberg is going to have to decide whether or not to debate ahead of Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't see that going particularly well for him.
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
Sanders will be slaughtered if he is nominee.
"crazy socialist" Bernie, who honeymooned in Soviet Union?
Dems are fools as I have said before.
I agree that it how it loks to us outsiders. God knows how it looks to the American people.
Wow the German economy has completely come to a halt. Holy shit it's bad. If the UK had recorded just 0.6% growth for 2019 it would be wall to wall coverage and wailing from the remainer press and media. At 1.4% we had it, when 1.4% wasn't so bad.
I never thought I would feel sorry for Julian Smith, what with his dodgy goings on over pairing when he was Chief Whip, but he really has been treated like crap after having got power sharing back on track.
At least he has got Skipton Sheep Day to look forward to.
Wow the German economy has completely come to a halt. Holy shit it's bad. If the UK had recorded just 0.6% growth for 2019 it would be wall to wall coverage and wailing from the remainer press and media. At 1.4% we had it, when 1.4% wasn't so bad.
Telegraph: "German 10-year Bund yields have fallen to a three-month low of minus 0.40pc and are once again flagging deflation risk, although not just because of virus fears. The eurozone rebound is close to stalling and Deutsche Bank has just issued a recession call for Germany. "
Wow the German economy has completely come to a halt. Holy shit it's bad. If the UK had recorded just 0.6% growth for 2019 it would be wall to wall coverage and wailing from the remainer press and media. At 1.4% we had it, when 1.4% wasn't so bad.
Telegraph: "German 10-year Bund yields have fallen to a three-month low of minus 0.40pc and are once again flagging deflation risk, although not just because of virus fears. The eurozone rebound is close to stalling and Deutsche Bank has just issued a recession call for Germany. "
They are rather more exposed to the Chinese economy than we are.
Is this a thing now, school visits for MPs? As a child, I never met my MP, the colourful Tom Driberg. Though come to think of it, I've never met my MP in several decades since.
Wow the German economy has completely come to a halt. Holy shit it's bad. If the UK had recorded just 0.6% growth for 2019 it would be wall to wall coverage and wailing from the remainer press and media. At 1.4% we had it, when 1.4% wasn't so bad.
Telegraph: "German 10-year Bund yields have fallen to a three-month low of minus 0.40pc and are once again flagging deflation risk, although not just because of virus fears. The eurozone rebound is close to stalling and Deutsche Bank has just issued a recession call for Germany. "
They are rather more exposed to the Chinese economy than we are.
The scary part for Germany though is that all this predates COVID19.
"When the longest serving member of cabinet is Liz Truss it really does make you ask “Is that all you’ve got?”. It is a really poor cabinet. All cabinets are eloquent about the people who assemble them and Mr Cummings and Mr Johnson, for their different reasons, have chosen a weak team."
So who should we pine for from Theresa May's Cabinet?
Mind you, the judgement in the 'transphobic tweet' case doesn't address this:
The College of Policing’s guidance defines a transgender hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.
We really do need to get rid of this sort of garbage, defining a hate crime as something which doesn't depend to even the slightest degree on whether the perception is well-founded.
The judge does deal with this and indeed his finding that the policy was lawful was expressly based on the fact that the police could still use their common sense:
"it seems to me that this approach does not exclude that there must, on the facts narrated by a complainant, be some rational basis for concluding that there is a hate element. Suppose, for example, that a fat and bald straight non-trans man is walking home from work down his quiet residential street when abuse is shouted at him from a passing car to the effect that he is fat and bald. If that person went to the police and said the abuse were based on hostility because of transgender it cannot be the case that HCOG would require it to be recorded as such as a non-crime hate incident when there is nothing in the facts which remotely begins to suggest that was any connection with that protected strand. Vitally important though the purposes which HCOG serves undoubtedly are, it does not require the police to leave common sense wholly out of account when deciding whether to record what is or is not a non-crime hate incident.
...
206. For these reasons, I conclude that the use of complainant perception in defining non-crime hate incidents does not contravene the requirement of foreseeability. Overall, the perception based approach in HCOG does not, in my judgment, confer a discretion so broad that it depends on the will of those who apply it, on the whim of those who may report incidents, nor are its terms so broadly defined as to produce the same effect in practice: In re Gallagher, supra, [17]."
We really need to find a different name for "common sense". Right now it feels like a breach of the old Trades Description Act every time it gets used as a phrase.
"When the longest serving member of cabinet is Liz Truss it really does make you ask “Is that all you’ve got?”. It is a really poor cabinet. All cabinets are eloquent about the people who assemble them and Mr Cummings and Mr Johnson, for their different reasons, have chosen a weak team."
So who should be pine for from Theresa May's Cabinet?
Another poll showing Sanders as the Dem candidate polling best against Trump. This time 2 behind in Texas, which is admittedly unlikely to be the tipping point state, but there's been a bunch of recent polls showing Sanders as at least no worse than any other likely candidate.
So why are so many people saying that Democrats would be crazy to choose Sanders instead of - who? The comparison with Corbyn is also not valid, as Corbyn pretty much always polled really really badly.
Probably the worst outcome for Dems would be if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates but no majority, and then the convention chooses someone Sanders beat in the actual primaries. Bloomberg makes this quite a likely situation. But it always felt like his second choice (after Bloomberg becoming president) was always Trump winning again, no wonder a majority of Dems don't like the guy.
Bloomberg is spending $millions attacking Trump. He isn't attacking any of his Democrat competitors. It feels personal against Trump.
Bloomberg knows that attacking Trump is all he's got that appeals to Democrat voters.
There may well be personal animosity between them, which is one of the reasons Bloomberg enjoys having Trump as president - it makes him look good in comparison to Trump, and makes him more relevant on the national stage.
But this soap opera about which billionaire is the biggest pantomime villain is just a distraction from taking the necessary action on the biggest crises of our time (global overheating and inequality, I reckon).
Bloomberg is going to have to decide whether or not to debate ahead of Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't see that going particularly well for him.
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
Sanders will be slaughtered if he is nominee.
"crazy socialist" Bernie, who honeymooned in Soviet Union?
Dems are fools as I have said before.
Because Trump's team will want to campaign on who has the best Russian ties?
Get with the programme, grandad, she's one of them antiwossname trope users. Oh hold on, no she's not Labour so never mind; nothing to see here; move along.
The man who criticised the recent Queenferry bridge closure, when he chaired the committee that selected the final design - a mighty opponent for Nicola.....
After five years (arguably thirteen years) of weak government, some people - perhaps most - may crave a stronger one. I'm reminded of the lines in Yes, PM when Bernard tells Hacker that Hacker's predecessor has accused Jim in his memoirs of being dictatorial and running a Presidential-style government.
Hacker is delighted. "Dictatorial, eh?" and he visibly preens himself.
Blair should have sacked Brown, but didn't, and in the end his cowardice helped finish New Labour (though the Iraq War and the 08 recession probably didn't help).
This seems like evolutionary wiring. Men can provide children at any age. Women can only provide children until their early 40s. It makes sense that each sex's attraction facilitates this logic.
This seems like evolutionary wiring. Men can provide children at any age. Women can only provide children until their early 40s. It makes sense that each sex's attraction facilitates this logic.
After five years (arguably thirteen years) of weak government, some people - perhaps most - may crave a stronger one. I'm reminded of the lines in Yes, PM when Bernard tells Hacker that Hacker's predecessor has accused Jim in his memoirs of being dictatorial and running a Presidential-style government.
Hacker is delighted. "Dictatorial, eh?" and he visibly preens himself.
Blair should have sacked Brown, but didn't, and in the end his cowardice helped finish New Labour (though the Iraq War and the 08 recession probably didn't help).
I'm all for some strong government. But I would prefer it without autocracy and personality cult. Too much to ask?
Over last approx three days, RLB has shortened from 14 to 9.
Does anyone know why?
More to the point I was looking at 538's national polling averages for the democratic candidate and omigod Bloomberg. Where the hell are those numbers coming from? His average is going woosh up and he'll be in second place soon if it continues. I hope to goodness nobody bet based on my disparaging him...
After five years (arguably thirteen years) of weak government, some people - perhaps most - may crave a stronger one. I'm reminded of the lines in Yes, PM when Bernard tells Hacker that Hacker's predecessor has accused Jim in his memoirs of being dictatorial and running a Presidential-style government.
Hacker is delighted. "Dictatorial, eh?" and he visibly preens himself.
Blair should have sacked Brown, but didn't, and in the end his cowardice helped finish New Labour (though the Iraq War and the 08 recession probably didn't help).
I'm all for some strong government. But I would prefer it without autocracy and personality cult. Too much to ask?
In our media and image obsessed world, probably yes too much to ask.
I'm not sure we can completely blame the politicians for the demands of the Celeb, media and 24 hour news world which create the personality hyperbole.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
This seems like evolutionary wiring. Men can provide children at any age. Women can only provide children until their early 40s. It makes sense that each sex's attraction facilitates this logic.
Fantasy wiring more likely. Older men fooling themselves that they are attractive to young women.
From MY point of view, during sex I do not want to be faced with some randy old fool with erectile dysfunction.
Besides, women are not "things" to have sex with or produce babies for you. We are people too. We have feelings, wants and desires. We want someone who cares, genuinely cares and wants us for more than sex. Someone who shares common interests with us, conversation and laughter. Sharing, caring and loving and it has to be proven with actions not just the three word formulaic "I love you".
Being sacked for a "dangerous excess of integrity" is simultaneously funny and sad.
Johnson has less than zero integrity, this is clear, therefore to "serve" him, it is surely best if you are not overly burdened with it yourself. Or if you are, that you have the ability to pop it in a jar and store it in a safe place for later.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
That would be such a dream ... but even with total domination of the political scene, would the Tories dare go for it?
Our very own First Amendment, the British Freedom of Speech Act... sigh.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Absolutely right. I was beginning to think we were running out of judges or opinion formers who could begin with Orwell and end with Mill, and actually agree with them. Hope this is a landmark judgement.
There are huge numbers of problems with this government, but on the plus side it seems to me to more likely to protect and enhance freedom of opinion and of speech than any recent ones, or any alternative one now.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
Another poll showing Sanders as the Dem candidate polling best against Trump. This time 2 behind in Texas, which is admittedly unlikely to be the tipping point state, but there's been a bunch of recent polls showing Sanders as at least no worse than any other likely candidate.
So why are so many people saying that Democrats would be crazy to choose Sanders instead of - who? The comparison with Corbyn is also not valid, as Corbyn pretty much always polled really really badly.
Probably the worst outcome for Dems would be if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates but no majority, and then the convention chooses someone Sanders beat in the actual primaries. Bloomberg makes this quite a likely situation. But it always felt like his second choice (after Bloomberg becoming president) was always Trump winning again, no wonder a majority of Dems don't like the guy.
Bloomberg is spending $millions attacking Trump. He isn't attacking any of his Democrat competitors. It feels personal against Trump.
Bloomberg knows that attacking Trump is all he's got that appeals to Democrat voters.
There may well be personal animosity between them, which is one of the reasons Bloomberg enjoys having Trump as president - it makes him look good in comparison to Trump, and makes him more relevant on the national stage.
But this soap opera about which billionaire is the biggest pantomime villain is just a distraction from taking the necessary action on the biggest crises of our time (global overheating and inequality, I reckon).
Bloomberg is going to have to decide whether or not to debate ahead of Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't see that going particularly well for him.
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
Sanders will be slaughtered if he is nominee.
"crazy socialist" Bernie, who honeymooned in Soviet Union?
Dems are fools as I have said before.
I agree that it how it loks to us outsiders. God knows how it looks to the American people.
I think a large part of the Democratic Party establishment would agree with Rottenborough's assessment, but limit it to those voting for Bernie (and Warren).
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
Another poll showing Sanders as the Dem candidate polling best against Trump. This time 2 behind in Texas, which is admittedly unlikely to be the tipping point state, but there's been a bunch of recent polls showing Sanders as at least no worse than any other likely candidate.
So why are so many people saying that Democrats would be crazy to choose Sanders instead of - who? The comparison with Corbyn is also not valid, as Corbyn pretty much always polled really really badly.
Probably the worst outcome for Dems would be if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates but no majority, and then the convention chooses someone Sanders beat in the actual primaries. Bloomberg makes this quite a likely situation. But it always felt like his second choice (after Bloomberg becoming president) was always Trump winning again, no wonder a majority of Dems don't like the guy.
Bloomberg is spending $millions attacking Trump. He isn't attacking any of his Democrat competitors. It feels personal against Trump.
Bloomberg knows that attacking Trump is all he's got that appeals to Democrat voters.
There may well be personal animosity between them, which is one of the reasons Bloomberg enjoys having Trump as president - it makes him look good in comparison to Trump, and makes him more relevant on the national stage.
But this soap opera about which billionaire is the biggest pantomime villain is just a distraction from taking the necessary action on the biggest crises of our time (global overheating and inequality, I reckon).
Bloomberg is going to have to decide whether or not to debate ahead of Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't see that going particularly well for him.
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
Sanders will be slaughtered if he is nominee.
"crazy socialist" Bernie, who honeymooned in Soviet Union?
Dems are fools as I have said before.
I agree that it how it loks to us outsiders. God knows how it looks to the American people.
I think a large part of the Democratic Party establishment would agree with Rottenborough's assessment, but limit it to those voting for Bernie (and Warren).
Indeed. That was what I meant. Although non-Bernie voters need to decide on who is going to be the Stop-Bernie candidate pretty soon.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
You could argue that the action of the police was intimidating.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Was it not rather an indication that the existing law protects freedom of expression, and that it is the police who need education on what the law actually is (not for the first time).
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
Do away with all such laws may be too far, but this guy had to go through a very long process and a court judgement to not be in fear of potential police harassment for lawful activity. They should have backed down long ago or better yet not soughg to infringe his liberty unreasonably in the first place.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
It's one of the few beliefs that unites more or less all parts of the Right spectrum, social conservative to libertarian: that the police should be thief takers, not glorified social workers.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Was it not rather an indication that the existing law protects freedom of expression, and that it is the police who need education on what the law actually is (not for the first time).
The fact that these idiotic anti-opinion laws exist in the first place is the problem. Holding an opinion, any opinion, isn't a crime. It may make a person stupid but not a criminal. Unless they are using said platform to incite violence, of course, opinions and expression of them shouldn't be in any way restricted.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
It's one of the few beliefs that unites more or less all parts of the Right spectrum, social conservative to libertarian: that the police should be thief takers, not glorified social workers.
The Court sided with the defendant. He had no loss of Freedom of Speech.
Or do you really mean that you want "Consequence-free Freedom of Speech"? Any utterance is acceptable.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
The interpretation of the law is the issue. It should lean towards the freedom to be crass and to be ignorant and to be gratuitously offensive. But a scrapping of the law itself would be a terrible step backwards. If somebody is intent on, for example, stirring up hatred towards a racial group, and it is reasonable to conclude that a heightened risk of violence is likely to be the result, it is important and it is right that that person can be prosecuted for it.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
That’s a very low bar you’re setting, Beibheirli.
No. We have always had Freedom of Speech. This just proves it. The Police made a mistake and the Courts found in favour of the defendant.
Lack of Freedom-of-Speech is more like North Korea where if you say the "wrong thing" they wheel out the aircraft guns and aim them at you.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
It's one of the few beliefs that unites more or less all parts of the Right spectrum, social conservative to libertarian: that the police should be thief takers, not glorified social workers.
The Court sided with the defendant. He had no loss of Freedom of Speech.
Or do you really mean that you want "Consequence-free Freedom of Speech"? Any utterance is acceptable.
Comments
I posted this story on the Boris Bridge thread, and no one noticed.
It's not an entirely fanciful project in engineering terms, but the changes of its ever being built are approximately zero.
Bit like the Boris Bridge, but with a true grandiosity of vision.
And it would give generations of Casinos something to do after Parliament is rebuilt...
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1228287911768055811
Though in the extraordinarily unlikely event of this happening a bridge would become much more plausible.
"it seems to me that this approach does not exclude that there must, on the facts narrated by a complainant, be some rational basis for concluding that there is a hate element. Suppose, for example, that a fat and bald straight non-trans man is walking home from work down his quiet residential street when abuse is shouted at him from a passing car to the effect that he is fat and bald. If that person went to the police and said the abuse were based on hostility because of transgender it cannot be the case that HCOG would require it to be recorded as such as a non-crime hate incident when there is nothing in the facts which remotely begins to suggest that was any connection with that protected strand. Vitally important though the purposes which HCOG serves undoubtedly are, it does not require the police to leave common sense wholly out of account when deciding whether to record what is or is not a non-crime hate incident.
...
206. For these reasons, I conclude that the use of complainant perception in defining non-crime hate incidents does not contravene the requirement of foreseeability. Overall, the perception based approach in HCOG does not, in my judgment, confer a discretion so broad that it depends on the will of those who apply it, on the whim of those who may report incidents, nor are its terms so broadly defined as to produce the same effect in practice: In re Gallagher, supra, [17]."
52.3
45.3
1.4
99.0
Leave 1% for ET!
"When the longest serving member of cabinet is Liz Truss it really does make you ask “Is that all you’ve got?”. It is a really poor cabinet. All cabinets are eloquent about the people who assemble them and Mr Cummings and Mr Johnson, for their different reasons, have chosen a weak team."
OTOH, his campaign spend is around $500m and counting...
Nein danke....
Now the Gibraltar Dam....
"crazy socialist" Bernie, who honeymooned in Soviet Union?
Dems are fools as I have said before.
At least he has got Skipton Sheep Day to look forward to.
Hammond? Rudd? Fox? Davis? Gauke? Cairns? Leadsom? Fallon? Green? Clark? Grayling? Green? Greening?
Hunt, maybe, a bit.....
Others?
https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1228280341405806592
https://twitter.com/Greg_Callus/status/1228298831718178830
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1228259934095183873?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1228259944706846720?s=20
Hacker is delighted. "Dictatorial, eh?" and he visibly preens himself.
Blair should have sacked Brown, but didn't, and in the end his cowardice helped finish New Labour (though the Iraq War and the 08 recession probably didn't help).
Does anyone know why?
I'm not sure we can completely blame the politicians for the demands of the Celeb, media and 24 hour news world which create the personality hyperbole.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/14/comekipwithme-2000-londoners-take-up-rory-stewarts-offer
From MY point of view, during sex I do not want to be faced with some randy old fool with erectile dysfunction.
Besides, women are not "things" to have sex with or produce babies for you. We are people too. We have feelings, wants and desires. We want someone who cares, genuinely cares and wants us for more than sex. Someone who shares common interests with us, conversation and laughter. Sharing, caring and loving and it has to be proven with actions not just the three word formulaic "I love you".
That person is likely to be near our own age.
Our very own First Amendment, the British Freedom of Speech Act... sigh.
There are huge numbers of problems with this government, but on the plus side it seems to me to more likely to protect and enhance freedom of opinion and of speech than any recent ones, or any alternative one now.
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
*innocent face*
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
Or do you really mean that you want "Consequence-free Freedom of Speech"? Any utterance is acceptable.
Lack of Freedom-of-Speech is more like North Korea where if you say the "wrong thing" they wheel out the aircraft guns and aim them at you.