IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.
And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.
Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).
Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
And I well remember the Scottish Government lecturing how the British Government had already announced an EU Referendum and that voting Scots voting No could mean that Scotland would be taken out of the EU as a result of the UK voting to Leave.
The Scottish Government was right. This was all foreseen before the Scottish Independence Referendum.
My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.
Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal
We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.
Seriously - how would you view the SNP on that analysis? Though it does seem to be developing two camps on issues such as gender change rights.
Funnily enough, I was just thinking this.
Most the SNPers (you, TUD, Stuart) on here come closest to my credo – I think Malc is more socially conservative however.
hmmm, I tend to disagree, I would have said socially liberal centre righty personally
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.
And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.
Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).
Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
And I well remember the Scottish Government lecturing how the British Government had already announced an EU Referendum and that voting Scots voting No could mean that Scotland would be taken out of the EU as a result of the UK voting to Leave.
The Scottish Government was right. This was all foreseen before the Scottish Independence Referendum.
It was indeed but the stupid Europeans never believed it could possibly happen and so voted NO.
I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.
I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
What you say and do on private property is held to be different to what you can say and do on public property in all systems of law I am familiar with.
One question is how that maps onto the Internet.
I think the issue is when certain companies have a monopoly in their sectors.
We all might have the right to shout in the town square, but what happens if that town square gets converted into a private mall?
To expand on that, the solution is to make Twitter a protocol, much as usenet was back in the day.
Anyone can then host a Twitter server, and serve their own ads and censorship rules on it.
Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on social media, there's Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Tiktok as well as others - medium, gab and so on and so forth.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
I'm not advocating rioting my any stretch of the imagination but this stuff has been going on since the civil rights movement in the 60's and when the anger dies down the "reforms and redress" never happen.
There is no reason the "reforms and redress" can't or shouldn't be announced today. Yesterday would have been better, years ago even better, but today is far from too early.
We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.
For sure. And tbh the same applies to voting for him in my view. Certainly if I met somebody who intended to do that I would assume they were of poor character and/or very limited intelligence unless and until proved otherwise.
That is a poor assumption. I wish it were true but given the numbers who are voting for him it is clear that their intelligence is going to be not far from normal, and there will also be plenty of those with good character amongst them.
Many simply have the wrong news fed to them, whether its by Fox or the social media. Others vote a way because its what they always have done or its their team.
But it comes from a place of desperation. He knows he's on his way to losing and is casting about for anything which he thinks has even a glimmer of a chance of heading off the inevitable. It won't work. After 4 years in the job you can't get re-elected on a platform of negativity and strife.
Sure you can. Mugabe did. You can use the violence to stop your opponents voting. I strongly suspect the armed end lockdown protests were in part a dry run for protests against "voter fraud" that would see armed protestors stopping voting in Democrat areas.
Oh yes. I'm expecting all of that. But imo America is not sufficiently banana republic for him to pull it off successfully. 4 more years might do it though.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
Giving credence to the looting is like giving credence to police officers and departments that behave badly. You can support protests and support the police.
Both sides make it hard though sometimes. Some of the videos we have seen of police in various different states firing rubber bullets at press and people on their own actual doorsteps is wrong and should be called out. Pointing a laser site at a member of the public for filming you is not professional behaviour. They act as if they dont expect repercussions from within.
Another thing about the behaviour of these different law enforcement agencies. They are all autonomous of each other. Its not like here in the UK where everything ultimately lands at the doorstep of the Government (or the Scottish government north of the border). And if we take our UK experiences we might assume that because the federal government is at the top of the tree, that somehow they are responsible for and have seniority over local policing.
What's interesting is that these metropolitan areas are largely Democrat, and have been for generations, headed by local politicians who talk the talk about community engagement etc.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.
And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.
Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).
Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
Or it was subject to a referendum, the result of which has been respected.
Unlike the outcome of the "once in a generation" referendum two years earlier.
The usual bollox about once in a generation again. Where in the world has there ever been any rule that said you can only have a referendum once in a generation, also define generation. You unionists are pretty pathetic, devoid of ideas and principles. Where does it say that every time a politician utters some words they become the de facto position forever, if you are going to spout rubbish at least try to coat your turd in sparkles.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.
And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.
Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).
Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
Or it was subject to a referendum, the result of which has been respected.
Unlike the outcome of the "once in a generation" referendum two years earlier.
The usual bollox about once in a generation again. Where in the world has there ever been any rule that said you can only have a referendum once in a generation, also define generation. You unionists are pretty pathetic, devoid of ideas and principles. Where does it say that every time a politician utters some words they become the de facto position forever, if you are going to spout rubbish at least try to coat your turd in sparkles.
It was in the Scottish Government's White Paper - written down, in black and white.
A statement. A commitment. A promise. Repeated more than once.
I'd suggest its the nationalists who deny this who are pretty pathetic, devoid of ideas and principles
Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.
The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.
Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
This is true as a general rule. But we're talking Trump here. If he is pro something that is in and of itself a strong piece of evidence in the debit column. Not to say it can't be outweighed by the credit side but it's off to a bad start and has some catching up to do.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
If the sanctions are harsh, police will lie even more to protect their colleagues and prosecutors will continue to avoid cases of police violence. The solutions are tricky. Education and training is definitely central, not just in police but across society.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Carnyx , they are just looking for ways to rig the result, pathetic cretins are scared to let Scotland vote and think they can indefinitely keep us as a colony. Boy are they in for a shock.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
You're getting hysterical over one of @HYUFD's opinions?
Others have said similar but I don't want to say the wrong name on such a sensitive subject.
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
But how easy is it to draw the line between a 'riot' and a legitimate protest ? How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
One of the complications is that whether you're consisted a Scot for the purpose of the referendum is a matter of timing.
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.
And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.
Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).
Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
Or it was subject to a referendum, the result of which has been respected.
Unlike the outcome of the "once in a generation" referendum two years earlier.
The usual bollox about once in a generation again. Where in the world has there ever been any rule that said you can only have a referendum once in a generation, also define generation. You unionists are pretty pathetic, devoid of ideas and principles. Where does it say that every time a politician utters some words they become the de facto position forever, if you are going to spout rubbish at least try to coat your turd in sparkles.
It was in the Scottish Government's White Paper - written down, in black and white.
A statement. A commitment. A promise. Repeated more than once.
I'd suggest its the nationalists who deny this who are pretty pathetic, devoid of ideas and principles
Can you provide list of the promises from Westminster manifesto's that are still adhered to please. That should shut you up for 10-20 years at least
The BBC are interested in making a drama based on the lockdown scandal surrounding Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s chief advisor broke quarantine rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham with his family – including his wife, who had Covid-19 symptoms. He also made a second 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems. And amid the furore, Piers Wenger, controller of BBC drama commissioning, has admitted the controversy could make for some seriously juicy dramatisation.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
But how easy is it to draw the line between a 'riot' and a legitimate protest ? How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
It can get messy at the finer end, but if it involves looting and arson its not legitimate.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Welcome. Want to join the TrumpToast club or still inclined to hedge?
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Joking aside my honest view is that it’s obvious that Scotland is on its way to the exit door. If I were a Scot I’d want independence. Far better to facilitate a friendly goodbye with a good natured referendum and have a cooperative disentanglement of assets than to end up at dagger drawn in ten year’s time.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
When has Trump said the murder of George Floyd wasn't wrong?
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things? Who made the decision over the charges?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
At the start it'll be like The Handmaid's Tale but toward the end it'll be like The Road.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Is that your 'socially liberal' side coming out, malcolm ?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
But how easy is it to draw the line between a 'riot' and a legitimate protest ? How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
Nigel, you have a curfew and anybody on the street is a rioter or looter, simple. Protests can be during the daylight hours up until curfew..
The BBC are interested in making a drama based on the lockdown scandal surrounding Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s chief advisor broke quarantine rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham with his family – including his wife, who had Covid-19 symptoms. He also made a second 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems. And amid the furore, Piers Wenger, controller of BBC drama commissioning, has admitted the controversy could make for some seriously juicy dramatisation.
My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.
Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal
We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
When has Trump said the murder of George Floyd wasn't wrong?
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
You're getting hysterical over one of @HYUFD's opinions?
Others have said similar but I don't want to say the wrong name on such a sensitive subject.
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
There's no way that would be murder in England, manslaughter, yes, probably. Did the officer (officers) really intend to kill or cause serious injury to this person?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Policing is ultimately by consent. You only go in hard when the overwhelming majority of the public back you and a minority need their heads kicked in (see how the london riots were closed down). If you do it when the root cause of the protests is a legitimate grievance, which is not being addressed, and when there is no attempt to claim things down, then you rapidly discover there’s more public than there is police. Things escalate further, people die, and you caused it.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
But how easy is it to draw the line between a 'riot' and a legitimate protest ? How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
Nigel, you have a curfew and anybody on the street is a rioter or looter, simple. Protests can be during the daylight hours up until curfew..
I'm afraid that's wrong for two reasons - breaching a curfew does not make you a rioter, and the White House protest war teargassed before any curfew.
The BBC are interested in making a drama based on the lockdown scandal surrounding Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s chief advisor broke quarantine rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham with his family – including his wife, who had Covid-19 symptoms. He also made a second 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems. And amid the furore, Piers Wenger, controller of BBC drama commissioning, has admitted the controversy could make for some seriously juicy dramatisation.
We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.
For sure. And tbh the same applies to voting for him in my view. Certainly if I met somebody who intended to do that I would assume they were of poor character and/or very limited intelligence unless and until proved otherwise.
That is a poor assumption. I wish it were true but given the numbers who are voting for him it is clear that their intelligence is going to be not far from normal, and there will also be plenty of those with good character amongst them.
Many simply have the wrong news fed to them, whether its by Fox or the social media. Others vote a way because its what they always have done or its their team.
Certainly there will be many many Trump 2020 voters who lack neither intelligence nor moral compass but I would judge that to be a minority. A large one but a minority nonetheless. Something of the order 48%. So my assumption - that at least one of these things is missing - is (imo) a reasonable way of working. Course, I will reverse my assumption in the face of sufficient contrary evidence for any specific individual. It would be bigoted of me not to.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Policing is ultimately by consent. You only go in hard when the overwhelming majority of the public back you and a minority need their heads kicked in (see how the london riots were closed down). If you do it when the root cause of the protests is a legitimate grievance, which is not being addressed, and when there is no attempt to claim things down, then you rapidly discover there’s more public than there is police. Things escalate further, people die, and you caused it.
You maintain the Queen's peace, and dont shy about using overwhelming force to do so and let the politicians argue about the voters.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
You're getting hysterical over one of @HYUFD's opinions?
Others have said similar but I don't want to say the wrong name on such a sensitive subject.
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
There's no way that would be murder in England, manslaughter, yes, probably. Did the officer (officers) really intend to kill or cause serious injury to this person?
Charging the rest of the 4 with manslaughter, or failing that Criminally Negligent Homicide would be a good start.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Here's how one of America's greatest presidents would do it.
Trump is not one of America's greatest presidents.
A police officer is in critical condition and one person has died following two separate shooting incidents involving Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers, the city's sheriff, Joe Lombardo, has confirmed.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Troops are not likely to make a sensitive policing issue any better. Squaddies are taught to use guns to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Our experiences in NI dont bode well for such an approach.
The rules seem to be based on the question, has website published the work or have they just provided the platform for someone elses opinion?
All the responsible newspapers consider their opinion articles as being published by them not by the author and will consider this when accepting or rejecting the article. The comments section are either actively moderated or post-hoc moderated as they do not want to be held responsible for unacceptable or illegal comments on their website.
In this respect Twitter is acting like an open opinion section of a newspaper, rather than a "social" media site. It has grown into a portal where people post their opinions so that anyone can read them and are usualy political in the widest sense. There is a strong case that Twitter is much like the Huffington Post and that rules that apply to online newspapers should apply to Twitter too. A tweet has been part published by twitter, and as a result Twitter should take more responsibility for what appears on their site.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
If I'm wrong and he wins I truly dread to think of the consequences.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Troops are not likely to make a sensitive policing issue any better. Squaddies are taught to use guns to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Our experiences in NI dont bode well for such an approach.
The US is already in breach of its international treaty obligations by using helicopters with Red Cross markings for crowd dispersal.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
When has Trump said the murder of George Floyd wasn't wrong?
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things?
The BBC are interested in making a drama based on the lockdown scandal surrounding Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s chief advisor broke quarantine rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham with his family – including his wife, who had Covid-19 symptoms. He also made a second 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems. And amid the furore, Piers Wenger, controller of BBC drama commissioning, has admitted the controversy could make for some seriously juicy dramatisation.
Will Emily Maitlis be directing it ? The BBC wants to inflame the situation and do as much damage as possible to Cummings.. there will little if any impartiality in thd project if it gets off the ground.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
When has Trump said the murder of George Floyd wasn't wrong?
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things?
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Wasn't there a poll that found that if Scottish Americans and Scottish Canadians could vote YES would win easily?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
You're getting hysterical over one of @HYUFD's opinions?
Others have said similar but I don't want to say the wrong name on such a sensitive subject.
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
There's no way that would be murder in England, manslaughter, yes, probably. Did the officer (officers) really intend to kill or cause serious injury to this person?
Charging the rest of the 4 with manslaughter, or failing that Criminally Negligent Homicide would be a good start.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
You're getting hysterical over one of @HYUFD's opinions?
Others have said similar but I don't want to say the wrong name on such a sensitive subject.
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
There's no way that would be murder in England, manslaughter, yes, probably. Did the officer (officers) really intend to kill or cause serious injury to this person?
The felony took place in the united states. This felony could most definitely be tried as "second degree murder" in the US. Furthermore "third degree murder" is a term used for manslaughter in many states.
The BBC are interested in making a drama based on the lockdown scandal surrounding Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s chief advisor broke quarantine rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham with his family – including his wife, who had Covid-19 symptoms. He also made a second 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems. And amid the furore, Piers Wenger, controller of BBC drama commissioning, has admitted the controversy could make for some seriously juicy dramatisation.
My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.
Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal
We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.
I`m with you. I like your "Six Ells" thingy.
I would have put you well to the right of me economically, but dunno!
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
When has Trump said the murder of George Floyd wasn't wrong?
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things?
Are we reading the same article? That's a really unhinged media hack piece. And It doesn't state any powers that could change the current situation.
Sure it does. That it is unpleasant reading to you don't make it "unhinged".
No, it is unhinged. The fact you can't actually name the powers that could be used speaks volumes.
The most relevant piece of the article is;
The last few years of the Obama administration were one of the most productive periods of criminal justice reform in American history.
Opinion, but okay. It proceeds to cite drug sentencing reform and access to surplus military equipment. And then continues;
These reforms did not root out brutality and racism. They were mild both in form and intent, undertaken with the goal of conciliating police and their communities, believing that enhancing trust would ultimately create safer conditions for police as well as those who fear them. It was the epitome of evolutionary cultural change.
Again, how is any of this relevant? And why do you think it is?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
Indeed.
If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.
Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
You're getting hysterical over one of @HYUFD's opinions?
Others have said similar but I don't want to say the wrong name on such a sensitive subject.
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
There's no way that would be murder in England, manslaughter, yes, probably. Did the officer (officers) really intend to kill or cause serious injury to this person?
Charging the rest of the 4 with manslaughter, or failing that Criminally Negligent Homicide would be a good start.
Which is what one of the four have been charged with but not the other three who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing to stop the death.
The rules seem to be based on the question, has website published the work or have they just provided the platform for someone elses opinion?
All the responsible newspapers consider their opinion articles as being published by them not by the author and will consider this when accepting or rejecting the article. The comments section are either actively moderated or post-hoc moderated as they do not want to be held responsible for unacceptable or illegal comments on their website.
In this respect Twitter is acting like an open opinion section of a newspaper, rather than a "social" media site. It has grown into a portal where people post their opinions so that anyone can read them and are usualy political in the widest sense. There is a strong case that Twitter is much like the Huffington Post and that rules that apply to online newspapers should apply to Twitter too. A tweet has been part published by twitter, and as a result Twitter should take more responsibility for what appears on their site.
As I understand the situation in the US, Twitter doesn't enjoy any particular protections that the Huffington Post doesn't. If the Huffington Post publish an editorial, they're responsible for the content of their article. However, if other people post stuff to their comments section to that article, the Huffington Post isn't responsible for the stuff that other people post.
In Twitter's case, their fact checks may be published by them, so if they were to publish a fact check saying "Donald Trump sexually harassed children" when in fact the people he sexually harassed were all adults, they'd be liable for the content that they published. However, the vast majority of Twitter content remains the equivalent to the Huffington Post's comments section.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Wasn't there a poll that found that if Scottish Americans and Scottish Canadians could vote YES would win easily?
Sorry, just can't remember!
[Edit]: under some definitions used by other countries, Mr Trump could have had a vote. One wonders which way he would have gone, especially after the rows over his golf centre and the renewables farm offshore.
This evisceration by the UK Statistics Authority of the (mis)use of data on testing got lost at the end of the last thread, but as I think it's a very important critique of how misleading the testing data is I am reposting it. Maybe Hancock should consider his position. My original comment is below, with an amendment.
The letter merits a careful read, and supports what I have said previously. It is saying that the data presented on testing is wholly inadequate, and reading between the (civil service) lines that this is not a result just of incompetence or even disingenuity, but is more or less wilfully misleading. For example:the aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding. It is also hard to believe the statistics work to support the testing programme itself. The statistics and analysis serve neither purpose well. And on the daily presentation: This presentation gives an artificially low impression of the proportion of tests returning a positive diagnosis.
The criticisms are damning, were made in Norgrove's previous letter to Hancock, and the government really doesn't care as long as the data seems to show that targets have been met.
This does make is harder to have the requisite information to tackle the virus. And it adds to the impression of a government machine that is, at best, careless with the truth.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Wasn't there a poll that found that if Scottish Americans and Scottish Canadians could vote YES would win easily?
Sorry, just can't remember!
[Edit]: under some definitions used by other countries, Mr Trump could have had a vote. One wonders which way he would have gone, especially after the rows over his golf centre and the renewables farm offshore.
Apparently the diaspora tends more nationalist (similar to Ireland I guess).
The BBC are interested in making a drama based on the lockdown scandal surrounding Dominic Cummings. The Prime Minister’s chief advisor broke quarantine rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham with his family – including his wife, who had Covid-19 symptoms. He also made a second 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems. And amid the furore, Piers Wenger, controller of BBC drama commissioning, has admitted the controversy could make for some seriously juicy dramatisation.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Sadly I believe it could still go either way. I am actually quite nervous about what Trump will actually do between now and November, particularly if he remains behind in the polls and has nothing to lose.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
When has Trump said the murder of George Floyd wasn't wrong?
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things?
Are we reading the same article? That's a really unhinged media hack piece. And It doesn't state any powers that could change the current situation.
Sure it does. That it is unpleasant reading to you don't make it "unhinged".
No, it is unhinged. The fact you can't actually name the powers that could be used speaks volumes.
The most relevant piece of the article is;
The last few years of the Obama administration were one of the most productive periods of criminal justice reform in American history.
Opinion, but okay. It proceeds to cite drug sentencing and access to surplus military equipment. And then continues;
These reforms did not root out brutality and racism. They were mild both in form and intent, undertaken with the goal of conciliating police and their communities, believing that enhancing trust would ultimately create safer conditions for police as well as those who fear them. It was the epitome of evolutionary cultural change.
Again, how is any of this relevant? And why do you think it is?
Its relevant because having a Police Force tooled up like they're on a military patrol in Basra leads to a depraved indifference to human life which is what we witnessed in the extrajudicial killing of George Floyd.
Plus you ignored the element about Trump using his powers ot the Presidency to try and squash peaceful protests like "kneeling" on the ground before someone was killed by kneeling on their neck.
If you shut down peaceful protests then what does that leave? Trump should have been on the side of peaceful protesters not against them.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Is that your 'socially liberal' side coming out, malcolm ?
I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo: The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
I feel hugely sorry for the boundary commissioners. Three times now, their work has been done then sent straight to the bin!
Indeed, and for much of the time they will have known it was going nowhere to boot.
It needs doing. The government has it's own motivations but so long as the commissioners remain untainted a process where the changes are automatic may be a necessity given parliaments approach for a decade.
(Coincidentally I was reading Camerons take on this in his autobiography just half an hour ago)
The part where Cameron explains cutting the number of MPs to save money and then moves seamlessly on to expanding the House of Lords?
They have already said that they are reopening the housing market, but how can the housing market work normally while evictions are suspended in the rental market? Much of the value of freehold property derives from its potential to generate rental income. Furthermore, people taking on a mortgage would like to have the security that they have the option to rent out their property if they lose their job, to meet the mortgage repayments.
This is important for reopening the economy. E.g. someone may take a job 100 miles away only if they can rent property in that area, and they may also need to sell or rent out their own property. A single mother may be living with her parents who are vulnerable to COVID, but if she can move to an address nearby then her children can attend school and she can return to work.
Also, in some cases evictions can enable people trapped in domestic abuse situations to access help once they are homeless. The evictions ban is a denial of legitimate property rights. If the government really wants society to begin to return to proper functioning, then the evictions ban should not be extended.
The rules seem to be based on the question, has website published the work or have they just provided the platform for someone elses opinion?
All the responsible newspapers consider their opinion articles as being published by them not by the author and will consider this when accepting or rejecting the article. The comments section are either actively moderated or post-hoc moderated as they do not want to be held responsible for unacceptable or illegal comments on their website.
In this respect Twitter is acting like an open opinion section of a newspaper, rather than a "social" media site. It has grown into a portal where people post their opinions so that anyone can read them and are usualy political in the widest sense. There is a strong case that Twitter is much like the Huffington Post and that rules that apply to online newspapers should apply to Twitter too. A tweet has been part published by twitter, and as a result Twitter should take more responsibility for what appears on their site.
As I understand the situation in the US, Twitter doesn't enjoy any particular protections that the Huffington Post doesn't. If the Huffington Post publish an editorial, they're responsible for the content of their article. However, if other people post stuff to their comments section to that article, the Huffington Post isn't responsible for the stuff that other people post.
In Twitter's case, their fact checks may be published by them, so if they were to publish a fact check saying "Donald Trump sexually harassed children" when in fact the people he sexually harassed were all adults, they'd be liable for the content that they published. However, the vast majority of Twitter content remains the equivalent to the Huffington Post's comments section.
Yes I agree with you, but I bet that Huffington post like print newspapers online take a much more active roll in moderating their content than twitter do.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Is that your 'socially liberal' side coming out, malcolm ?
It is indeed Nigel.
I will steer clear of the turnip fields after dark.
I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo: The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
I feel hugely sorry for the boundary commissioners. Three times now, their work has been done then sent straight to the bin!
Indeed, and for much of the time they will have known it was going nowhere to boot.
It needs doing. The government has it's own motivations but so long as the commissioners remain untainted a process where the changes are automatic may be a necessity given parliaments approach for a decade.
(Coincidentally I was reading Camerons take on this in his autobiography just half an hour ago)
The part where Cameron explains cutting the number of MPs to save money and then moves seamlessly on to expanding the House of Lords?
Well you don't get into politics for consistency. He claims to have backed Cleggs HoL reforms in the end. Making the Lords larger is presented as unfortunate necessity for governments to address the political balance.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
Sadly I believe it could still go either way. I am actually quite nervous about what Trump will actually do between now and November, particularly if he remains behind in the polls and has nothing to lose.
It’s perfectly possible Trump still wins.
How the Democrats campaign will be crucial to that, as he is a daemon created as a reaction to their own overreaction.
The different actions across Europe look like a disaster waiting to happen. Portugal say come all, come now. Greece says only some countries. etc etc etc.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rioting is not OK. What came before the rioting is not OK either.
There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
"put down" is an astonishingly loaded term given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Rubbish only one way to sort out rioters and looters, give it to them hard till they get the picture, these are not protestors they are scumbags, time to send in real troops and clear the streets.
Troops are not likely to make a sensitive policing issue any better. Squaddies are taught to use guns to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Our experiences in NI dont bode well for such an approach.
Bet it would clear the streets pretty damn quick though, tough troubles need tough measures.
Yes we're a huge hotspot with a very new trace system (And no App let alone an internationally compatible one), who'd want a bridge with us at this point ?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
Giving credence to the looting is like giving credence to police officers and departments that behave badly. You can support protests and support the police.
Both sides make it hard though sometimes. Some of the videos we have seen of police in various different states firing rubber bullets at press and people on their own actual doorsteps is wrong and should be called out. Pointing a laser site at a member of the public for filming you is not professional behaviour. They act as if they dont expect repercussions from within.
Another thing about the behaviour of these different law enforcement agencies. They are all autonomous of each other. Its not like here in the UK where everything ultimately lands at the doorstep of the Government (or the Scottish government north of the border). And if we take our UK experiences we might assume that because the federal government is at the top of the tree, that somehow they are responsible for and have seniority over local policing.
What's interesting is that these metropolitan areas are largely Democrat, and have been for generations, headed by local politicians who talk the talk about community engagement etc.
Why are they getting it so wrong, over and over?
Didn't the unlawful killing by a police officer take place in a metropolitan area?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
But how easy is it to draw the line between a 'riot' and a legitimate protest ? How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
Nigel, you have a curfew and anybody on the street is a rioter or looter, simple. Protests can be during the daylight hours up until curfew..
I'm afraid that's wrong for two reasons - breaching a curfew does not make you a rioter, and the White House protest war teargassed before any curfew.
Nigel, if there is a curfew and they warn that anyone on the streets after it will be shot then you are pretty stupid if you are out on the street. On the other one I bow to your superior knowledge , assuming they were peaceful protestors who had not been asked to remove themselves.
Yes we're a huge hotspot with a very new trace system (And no App let alone an internationally compatible one), who'd want a bridge with us at this point ?
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
But how easy is it to draw the line between a 'riot' and a legitimate protest ? How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
It can get messy at the finer end, but if it involves looting and arson its not legitimate.
Since time began there have always been louts, opportunists, agitators and agent provocateurs that subvert protests for their own ends so it becomes extremely difficult to organise peaceful protests. You cannot ban protest on the grounds that they may turn nasty but reasonable force should be used to put a stop to it when things get violent.
In the mids't of the melee people believe what they are predisposed to believe, some will blame Antifa others will blame white supremacists and far right groups stirring the pot. In truth there is going to be some of both.
The rules seem to be based on the question, has website published the work or have they just provided the platform for someone elses opinion?
All the responsible newspapers consider their opinion articles as being published by them not by the author and will consider this when accepting or rejecting the article. The comments section are either actively moderated or post-hoc moderated as they do not want to be held responsible for unacceptable or illegal comments on their website.
In this respect Twitter is acting like an open opinion section of a newspaper, rather than a "social" media site. It has grown into a portal where people post their opinions so that anyone can read them and are usualy political in the widest sense. There is a strong case that Twitter is much like the Huffington Post and that rules that apply to online newspapers should apply to Twitter too. A tweet has been part published by twitter, and as a result Twitter should take more responsibility for what appears on their site.
As I understand the situation in the US, Twitter doesn't enjoy any particular protections that the Huffington Post doesn't. If the Huffington Post publish an editorial, they're responsible for the content of their article. However, if other people post stuff to their comments section to that article, the Huffington Post isn't responsible for the stuff that other people post.
In Twitter's case, their fact checks may be published by them, so if they were to publish a fact check saying "Donald Trump sexually harassed children" when in fact the people he sexually harassed were all adults, they'd be liable for the content that they published. However, the vast majority of Twitter content remains the equivalent to the Huffington Post's comments section.
Yes I agree with you, but I bet that Huffington post like print newspapers online take a much more active roll in moderating their content than twitter do.
Possibly, but not so much for legal reasons as because their comments sections are a shared space read by anyone who looks at the article, whereas in Twitter you only see stuff from accounts that you follow (plus what the algorithm decides to promote for you even if you don't follow them, which I think is a bit more heavily curated).
Apparently the places with the really heavy moderation are porn sites, which have to worry about issues like promotion of prostitution that Section 230 specifically excludes, resulting in their comments sections being bizarrely wholesome.
I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.
I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
What you say and do on private property is held to be different to what you can say and do on public property in all systems of law I am familiar with.
One question is how that maps onto the Internet.
I think the issue is when certain companies have a monopoly in their sectors.
We all might have the right to shout in the town square, but what happens if that town square gets converted into a private mall?
To expand on that, the solution is to make Twitter a protocol, much as usenet was back in the day.
Anyone can then host a Twitter server, and serve their own ads and censorship rules on it.
IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.
I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
There was someone on PB the other day - I am ashamed to say I cannot remember who, was it one of you? - who suggested that the vote should be UK wide, on the dissolution of the Acts of Union rather than the departure of any one constituent nation. So for instance the English could leave if they wanted. That's quite different from campaigning to keep (say) the Scots in the union. I think that is a valid way in whcih the whole UK could vote. But not otherwise. Did the French or the Greeks have a vote on Brexit? No.
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Joking aside my honest view is that it’s obvious that Scotland is on its way to the exit door. If I were a Scot I’d want independence. Far better to facilitate a friendly goodbye with a good natured referendum and have a cooperative disentanglement of assets than to end up at dagger drawn in ten year’s time.
I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.
If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.
He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
I sure that last week/weekend will be seen as a game changer in terms of life in the USA. In what way it will change is harder to predict. I just hope that many of the minorities, who are so often undrrepresented at the ballot box in thee USA get their act together, have a huge "register to vote" campaign and really get their votes to make the difference.
Yes we're a huge hotspot with a very new trace system (And no App let alone an internationally compatible one), who'd want a bridge with us at this point ?
The lack of an internationally compatible app is lamentable. I don't understand how we got to this stage.
One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.
The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.
Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
Giving credence to the looting is like giving credence to police officers and departments that behave badly. You can support protests and support the police.
Both sides make it hard though sometimes. Some of the videos we have seen of police in various different states firing rubber bullets at press and people on their own actual doorsteps is wrong and should be called out. Pointing a laser site at a member of the public for filming you is not professional behaviour. They act as if they dont expect repercussions from within.
Another thing about the behaviour of these different law enforcement agencies. They are all autonomous of each other. Its not like here in the UK where everything ultimately lands at the doorstep of the Government (or the Scottish government north of the border). And if we take our UK experiences we might assume that because the federal government is at the top of the tree, that somehow they are responsible for and have seniority over local policing.
What's interesting is that these metropolitan areas are largely Democrat, and have been for generations, headed by local politicians who talk the talk about community engagement etc.
Why are they getting it so wrong, over and over?
The New York police famously rioted over the proposed creation of the independent Civilian Complaint Review Board.
Just remembering the name of the fellow who led the riot - Rudy someone... Giuliani maybe?
Comments
The Scottish Government was right. This was all foreseen before the Scottish Independence Referendum.
https://twitter.com/TravellingTabby/status/1267773730996002816?s=20
There's also the practical point that there is no legal definition of a Scot, and therefore no easy way of defining the franchise, except by residency. There is no Kingdom of Scotland/ Rioghachd na h-Alba passportt that one can wave when voting in, say, Liverpool in the way that our French fellow-Scots can do when voting for their government back in the Hexagon.
Many simply have the wrong news fed to them, whether its by Fox or the social media. Others vote a way because its what they always have done or its their team.
It’s clear that the police have been inflaming the protests: Everything they have done is exactly what you /don’t/ do if your intention is to de-escalate & prevent protests turning violent. At this point, I suspect this is deliberate on the part of at least some fraction of the police forces in the US - they know they can use the threat of mob violence to frighten ordinary voters into backing them, so they are cynically channelling this eruption of outrage into violence in order to get what they want. The more violence they can stir up the better - it only serves their own ends.
Where the police in the US have made a point of de-escalating these protests, violence has been minimal and easily brought under control, as the majority of the protesters don’t want violence in the first place & when they have trust in the policing around them are quick to prevent those elements amongst them from acting out. When the police are aiming rubber bullets at people’s heads and firing indiscriminatingly, or spraying with pepper spray before following up with a tear-gas canister to the face (which could easily kill), then all such trust is lost & a more violent outcome is inevitable.
It didn’t have to be this way, but the actions of the police are what has made it inevitable. Talking about "putting down" rioters is wildly inappropriate IMO.
Both sides make it hard though sometimes. Some of the videos we have seen of police in various different states firing rubber bullets at press and people on their own actual doorsteps is wrong and should be called out. Pointing a laser site at a member of the public for filming you is not professional behaviour. They act as if they dont expect repercussions from within.
Another thing about the behaviour of these different law enforcement agencies. They are all autonomous of each other. Its not like here in the UK where everything ultimately lands at the doorstep of the Government (or the Scottish government north of the border). And if we take our UK experiences we might assume that because the federal government is at the top of the tree, that somehow they are responsible for and have seniority over local policing.
What's interesting is that these metropolitan areas are largely Democrat, and have been for generations, headed by local politicians who talk the talk about community engagement etc.
Why are they getting it so wrong, over and over?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1267774923944099840?s=20
A statement. A commitment. A promise. Repeated more than once.
I'd suggest its the nationalists who deny this who are pretty pathetic, devoid of ideas and principles
When I suggested days ago that the 3 other Police Officers should be charged with Felony Murder then Charles seemed shocked and asked on what grounds, but then after I explained I saw no follow-up so I'm not sure if he agreed or not. Felony Murder may not be the right law, but they should certainly face some form of murder-related charge for their actions.
How would you define the crowd outside the White House last night ?
Perhaps you've recently moved away for a job - no longer able to vote in the referendum and vice versa. There are so many people who wouldn't be able to vote, but would be directly affected by the outcome, that it makes the case for Britain remaining one country.
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/02/bbc-drama-dominic-cummings-12790331/
Secondly the police department is in a Democrat city in a Democrat state. What power does he have to do those things? Who made the decision over the charges?
Protests can be during the daylight hours up until curfew..
Trump is not one of America's greatest presidents.
The rules seem to be based on the question, has website published the work or have they just provided the platform for someone elses opinion?
All the responsible newspapers consider their opinion articles as being published by them not by the author and will consider this when accepting or rejecting the article. The comments section are either actively moderated or post-hoc moderated as they do not want to be held responsible for unacceptable or illegal comments on their website.
In this respect Twitter is acting like an open opinion section of a newspaper, rather than a "social" media site. It has grown into a portal where people post their opinions so that anyone can read them and are usualy political in the widest sense. There is a strong case that Twitter is much like the Huffington Post and that rules that apply to online newspapers should apply to Twitter too. A tweet has been part published by twitter, and as a result Twitter should take more responsibility for what appears on their site.
But I'm not wrong.
https://twitter.com/CatRichert/status/1267534922480267264?s=19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees
https://twitter.com/timesradio/status/1267708686199410690?s=19
I would have put you well to the right of me economically, but dunno!
Thanks for the props!
The most relevant piece of the article is;
Opinion, but okay. It proceeds to cite drug sentencing reform and access to surplus military equipment. And then continues;
Again, how is any of this relevant? And why do you think it is?
In Twitter's case, their fact checks may be published by them, so if they were to publish a fact check saying "Donald Trump sexually harassed children" when in fact the people he sexually harassed were all adults, they'd be liable for the content that they published. However, the vast majority of Twitter content remains the equivalent to the Huffington Post's comments section.
[Edit]: under some definitions used by other countries, Mr Trump could have had a vote. One wonders which way he would have gone, especially after the rows over his golf centre and the renewables farm offshore.
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-response-to-matt-hancock-regarding-the-governments-covid-19-testing-data/
The letter merits a careful read, and supports what I have said previously. It is saying that the data presented on testing is wholly inadequate, and reading between the (civil service) lines that this is not a result just of incompetence or even disingenuity, but is more or less wilfully misleading. For example: the aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding. It is also hard to believe the statistics work to support the testing programme itself. The statistics and analysis serve neither purpose well. And on the daily presentation: This presentation gives an artificially low impression of the proportion of tests returning a positive diagnosis.
The criticisms are damning, were made in Norgrove's previous letter to Hancock, and the government really doesn't care as long as the data seems to show that targets have been met.
This does make is harder to have the requisite information to tackle the virus. And it adds to the impression of a government machine that is, at best, careless with the truth.
https://twitter.com/CALLIFRAY/status/1240919092493791232?s=19
Plus you ignored the element about Trump using his powers ot the Presidency to try and squash peaceful protests like "kneeling" on the ground before someone was killed by kneeling on their neck.
If you shut down peaceful protests then what does that leave? Trump should have been on the side of peaceful protesters not against them.
https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1267662905383596032
They have already said that they are reopening the housing market, but how can the housing market work normally while evictions are suspended in the rental market? Much of the value of freehold property derives from its potential to generate rental income. Furthermore, people taking on a mortgage would like to have the security that they have the option to rent out their property if they lose their job, to meet the mortgage repayments.
This is important for reopening the economy. E.g. someone may take a job 100 miles away only if they can rent property in that area, and they may also need to sell or rent out their own property. A single mother may be living with her parents who are vulnerable to COVID, but if she can move to an address nearby then her children can attend school and she can return to work.
Also, in some cases evictions can enable people trapped in domestic abuse situations to access help once they are homeless. The evictions ban is a denial of legitimate property rights. If the government really wants society to begin to return to proper functioning, then the evictions ban should not be extended.
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1267775699454222336?s=20
How the Democrats campaign will be crucial to that, as he is a daemon created as a reaction to their own overreaction.
https://twitter.com/sarahchurchwell/status/1267725712271781888
In the mids't of the melee people believe what they are predisposed to believe, some will blame Antifa others will blame white supremacists and far right groups stirring the pot. In truth there is going to be some of both.
Apparently the places with the really heavy moderation are porn sites, which have to worry about issues like promotion of prostitution that Section 230 specifically excludes, resulting in their comments sections being bizarrely wholesome.
Just remembering the name of the fellow who led the riot - Rudy someone... Giuliani maybe?
Whatever happened to that guy?