No he wasn't!! He's just forensic and cool. There are only two take-aways from that PMQ's. 1. The letter (bad for Johnson) and 2. the appearance and manner of Johnson (bad for Johnson).
You're missing the biggest one - 24 hour test turn around be end of month - thats one heck of a rod for PHE (and the government)'s backs.
Good. Look at what a shambles PHE were making of the testing, until Hancock made a public pledge of 100k tests in April and refused to back down.
Indeed.
There isn't a point to test and trace if the testing takes five days to turn around. 90% within 48 hours currently apparently but it makes sense to push now for 24 hours.
Also makes more sense to get the testing done quicker than promise eg 300,000 tests or anything like that as the next step.
It is already too late to claim this as any form of success, let alone aiming to achieve it by July.
It's never too late to do the right thing.
I think even you might accept that a 24 hrs small pox test might be a bit late now.
Not if there were a small pox epidemic going on right now.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
Here's the thing. Why is he wrong? They voted for a policy which the government is now enacting.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming people didn't *really* want what they voted for.
HYUFD is absolutely right. The Conservative manifesto was pretty clear about what was going to happen. The Conservatives were going to Get Brexit Done and that looks to me like what they are going to do.
Oh of course we can all argue about the flavour of Brexit, and manifesto claims for trade deals, etc, and I would be at the forefront of making those arguments, but if the people in the North were so worried about that they could have voted for a different party altogether.
You have a point, but simply 'Getting Brexit Done' and avoiding Corbyn in No 10 must have been appealing. The reality of a WTO exit, which a lot of influential Tories actually want, will hit people economically and the Tories politically but they may try to blame Covid19.
Oh absolutely, and as you may have noticed from my posts, I am extremely concerned that there is even the vaguest possibility of a "WTO exit" but that's what people, The People voted for.
Topping, I remember when me and you told all and sundry - contra consensus - that there would be no form of Brexit agreed which put a border on the island of Ireland. Why? Because it would be utter lunacy.
And we were right of course. Do you remember? Course you do.
Well, I feel the same way now about WTO Brexit. An act of such palpable lunacy that I just more or less know it will not happen.
Are we a cross-the-aisle team again here or do you actually think they might do it?
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
“They knew what they were voting for”
It’s their own fault right? Is that the official Conservative Party line?
Oh this is gold.
No, it's not.
What isn’t?
We were discussing the impact of Nissan closing in the North East. I made no mention at all of Brexit, merely the likely factual impact that would have, Brexit or no Brexit.
@HYUFD’s response was essentially: “it doesn’t matter if Nissan closes. If that is a result of WTO terms, then it’s their own fault. They should not have voted Leave or for the Conservatives”.
You asked if it was official party line, it is not.
No, it's merely the view of a Tory Party constituency chairperson in the "I'm Alright, shame about the Plebs" South.
It is official party line.
The party line is to go to WTO terms Brexit in December if the EU do not offer a Canada style FTA by then.
If Nissan close the factory because of WTO terms Brexit it will also be because of Government policy.
Hard choices lie ahead, no point wishing them away
No it's not the official party line.
The official party line is we are leaving the Single Market. The rest of that and not giving a shit about Nissan is all on you.
You voted Leave. I did not.
However I respect the vote and the fact most Tory and Leave voters now want WTO terms Brexit.
However if Nissan closes because of WTO terms Brexit you own it more than me
Once again we need to explain this to you with crayon drawings. The referendum was to leave the EU. The EEA is not the EU. Government policy is to translate "EU" as "EEA". Government policy is to cut every single trade deal we have with everyone. Government policy is to imperil our automotive sector.
Its nothing to do with the referendum. This is a political choice your party is making.
Yep. But that was a very likely outcome of a Leave vote. And lo it may well transpire.
Let's go back to that ballot paper again - it said remain or leave and people chose leave. It didn't have any nuances on it so the government is at liberty to interpret it however the damn well hell it likes. And if people think they have been betrayed then fine, kick out the govt in 2024 and elect someone else.
That's the whole premise of Take Back Control. Glad you're coming around to it
Never an argument from me - I have a gun in my hand and by God I can shoot my own foot off if I want just watch me.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Is it not the Supreme Court which is responsible for that ? Would the current court recognise as constitutional such a law from Congress ?
It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the laws set by Congress and the Constitution. If Congress changed the law, then what could the Supreme Court do about it?
Even if this wasn't the case, Neil Gorsuch would - I would have thought - be entirely in favour of such a change. On the subject of police overreach and brutality, he very often sides with his liberal colleges.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
SM without FM would be the ultimate cherry picking as far as the EU is concerned. Let alone Britain, you think Europe would agree to that?
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Is it not the Supreme Court which is responsible for that ? Would the current court recognise as constitutional such a law from Congress ?
New York City paid out $230 million in 2018 to settle brutality lawsuits. That doesn't include how much the city had to pay its own lawyers.
This just shows that a civil remedy alone isn't a solution. There has to be a culture of vigorous civilian supervision, which doesn't really exist there.
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Dunno, to be honest. The WTO loons have taken over the asylum, so expecting them to engage with reality is a bit optimistic. What is clear is that the UK is in an incredibly weak position, entirely of its own making:
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
Here's the thing. Why is he wrong? They voted for a policy which the government is now enacting.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming people didn't *really* want what they voted for.
HYUFD is absolutely right. The Conservative manifesto was pretty clear about what was going to happen. The Conservatives were going to Get Brexit Done and that looks to me like what they are going to do.
Oh of course we can all argue about the flavour of Brexit, and manifesto claims for trade deals, etc, and I would be at the forefront of making those arguments, but if the people in the North were so worried about that they could have voted for a different party altogether.
You have a point, but simply 'Getting Brexit Done' and avoiding Corbyn in No 10 must have been appealing. The reality of a WTO exit, which a lot of influential Tories actually want, will hit people economically and the Tories politically but they may try to blame Covid19.
Oh absolutely, and as you may have noticed from my posts, I am extremely concerned that there is even the vaguest possibility of a "WTO exit" but that's what people, The People voted for.
Topping, I remember when me and you told all and sundry - contra consensus - that there would be no form of Brexit agreed which put a border on the island of Ireland. Why? Because it would be utter lunacy.
And we were right of course. Do you remember? Course you do.
Well, I feel the same way now about WTO Brexit. An act of such palpable lunacy that I just more or less know it will not happen.
Are we a cross-the-aisle team again here or do you actually think they might do it?
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Great. Yes, last sentence is what I expect. Something that changes little but can be presented as 'not an extension'.
Pity there's no market on it. Perhaps there will be nearer the time.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
SM without FM would be the ultimate cherry picking as far as the EU is concerned. Let alone Britain, you think Europe would agree to that?
The opening words of the preamble to the SM are (something along the lines of) "the free movement of goods, capital and labour". So, I'd go for "no".
"Last week the head of England's testing programme, Dido Harding, said 84% of tests at drive-in centres were returned within 24 hours, and 95% within 48 hours."
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
There has been a lot of talk about potential second waves etc but I have yet to see any evidence of this particular virus having anything like that anywhere in the world. It does seem to burn out somewhat for reasons as yet unclear. It may be that by August the world will look very different.
Indeed. The defence of the Wave Two theory is that it will come back in the autumn. Yet in countries where it is autumn/winter now (Oz, NZ, SA) it has not seemingly come back.
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Dunno, to be honest. The WTO loons have taken over the asylum, so expecting them to engage with reality is a bit optimistic. What is clear is that the UK is in an incredibly weak position, entirely of its own making:
Oh absolutely, there is no sensible head to counsel against. As I said to yer man @kinabalu if they really want to do it, now is the time. Hopes of Jeremy Hunt riding onto the battlefield on a white charger (preferably a USB Type C one) are forlorn.
Since the advent of the majority of the population having a high quality video recorder in their pocket in America there has been a sharp fall in reported sightings of big foot & ufos but amazingly a vast increase in the number of corroborated incidents of police misconduct.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
SM without FM would be the ultimate cherry picking as far as the EU is concerned. Let alone Britain, you think Europe would agree to that?
Yes, for full access but not membership - if the fee was enough. And perhaps there is scope for FM to be ended in theory but less so in practice. Sold differently here to in Europe. Necessity is the mother of invention and you know how creative politicians can be sometimes.
Where is the original email to see what actually was asked.
I could easily write an email saying, do you believe nobody should be jailed and that the police should not attempt to pursue individuals, regardless of their actions, because BLM is such an important cause and there is historic justification for violent reaction #DefundThePolice #AbolishPrisons
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
Here's the thing. Why is he wrong? They voted for a policy which the government is now enacting.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming people didn't *really* want what they voted for.
HYUFD is absolutely right. The Conservative manifesto was pretty clear about what was going to happen. The Conservatives were going to Get Brexit Done and that looks to me like what they are going to do.
Oh of course we can all argue about the flavour of Brexit, and manifesto claims for trade deals, etc, and I would be at the forefront of making those arguments, but if the people in the North were so worried about that they could have voted for a different party altogether.
Once again, we are talking about Sunderland and unless I'm missing something all three Sunderland seats are held by Labour..
Ah in which case apols and that is fair enough. And I agree that if so then the burghers of Sunderland would probably not appreciate our man with the blue rosette knocking on their doors. But in general, I have a lot of sympathy for the point HYUFD was making. All the more so in fact if the voters of Sunderland foresaw the dangers of a Cons govt and voted Labour. Because the rest of the country and the Red Wall decided it was fine to close Nissan.
Not quite as remember most people don't think about the consequences of their actions.
As with the poll tax, Brexit will occur, Nissan will close and the Tories will cop all the blame...
Basically if Nissan closes the red wall will return to Labour for the next 20 years.
Not necessarily. It’s possible the Government would be able to blame the EU for not “doing a deal”.
Which is what Boris said in response to Teresa May.
I'll repeat what I said a few times during the Commons Brexit imbroglio - any Tory/Leaver who thinks they'll be thanked in 2024 for "getting Brexit done" if it leads to voters being substantially worse off should share their smoking materials more widely.
They may get slightly more of a free pass for covid19, but even that will be judged on the long economic tail by that stage, rather than the initial response.
There could (therefore) be an attempt to muddy the waters between the two.. but rightly or wrongly, blame for people feeling poor usually ends up at the door of the incumbent govt.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
SM without FM would be the ultimate cherry picking as far as the EU is concerned. Let alone Britain, you think Europe would agree to that?
The opening words of the preamble to the SM are (something along the lines of) "the free movement of goods, capital and labour". So, I'd go for "no".
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Is it not the Supreme Court which is responsible for that ? Would the current court recognise as constitutional such a law from Congress ?
New York City paid out $230 million in 2018 to settle brutality lawsuits. That doesn't include how much the city had to pay its own lawyers.
This just shows that a civil remedy alone isn't a solution. There has to be a culture of vigorous civilian supervision, which doesn't really exist there.
New York cops rioting in the early nineties when a civilian oversight board was mooted.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
Here's the thing. Why is he wrong? They voted for a policy which the government is now enacting.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming people didn't *really* want what they voted for.
HYUFD is absolutely right. The Conservative manifesto was pretty clear about what was going to happen. The Conservatives were going to Get Brexit Done and that looks to me like what they are going to do.
Oh of course we can all argue about the flavour of Brexit, and manifesto claims for trade deals, etc, and I would be at the forefront of making those arguments, but if the people in the North were so worried about that they could have voted for a different party altogether.
You have a point, but simply 'Getting Brexit Done' and avoiding Corbyn in No 10 must have been appealing. The reality of a WTO exit, which a lot of influential Tories actually want, will hit people economically and the Tories politically but they may try to blame Covid19.
Oh absolutely, and as you may have noticed from my posts, I am extremely concerned that there is even the vaguest possibility of a "WTO exit" but that's what people, The People voted for.
Topping, I remember when me and you told all and sundry - contra consensus - that there would be no form of Brexit agreed which put a border on the island of Ireland. Why? Because it would be utter lunacy.
And we were right of course. Do you remember? Course you do.
Well, I feel the same way now about WTO Brexit. An act of such palpable lunacy that I just more or less know it will not happen.
Are we a cross-the-aisle team again here or do you actually think they might do it?
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
You two are a lot more optimistic than I am. I hope you are right, and I am wrong.
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Dunno, to be honest. The WTO loons have taken over the asylum, so expecting them to engage with reality is a bit optimistic. What is clear is that the UK is in an incredibly weak position, entirely of its own making:
1. The UK government cannot allow itself to be blackmailed by a private company
2. Refusing to make changes to the timings, especially when CV-19 lost us four months of an already tight timetable, was foolish. I understand that Johnson didn't want to look weak. But sometimes the world really does change and you need to recognise that.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Is it not the Supreme Court which is responsible for that ? Would the current court recognise as constitutional such a law from Congress ?
It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the laws set by Congress and the Constitution. If Congress changed the law, then what could the Supreme Court do about it?
Even if this wasn't the case, Neil Gorsuch would - I would have thought - be entirely in favour of such a change. On the subject of police overreach and brutality, he very often sides with his liberal colleges.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Is it not the Supreme Court which is responsible for that ? Would the current court recognise as constitutional such a law from Congress ?
New York City paid out $230 million in 2018 to settle brutality lawsuits. That doesn't include how much the city had to pay its own lawyers.
This just shows that a civil remedy alone isn't a solution. There has to be a culture of vigorous civilian supervision, which doesn't really exist there.
New York cops rioting in the early nineties when a civilian oversight board was mooted.
The official Civilian Complaint Review Board in NYC has been rendered ineffectual to useless for years by politicians of both parties.
It's a familiar pattern. An outrage occurs. Not always but usually, no cop gets sacked or really disciplined. Then a quiet payout months and years later.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
Which is an argument for having special police units equipped and trained to deal with such persons in particular situations, but not an argument for militarizing all policing and all police officers.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Dunno, to be honest. The WTO loons have taken over the asylum, so expecting them to engage with reality is a bit optimistic. What is clear is that the UK is in an incredibly weak position, entirely of its own making:
1. The UK government cannot allow itself to be blackmailed by a private company
2. Refusing to make changes to the timings, especially when CV-19 lost us four months of an already tight timetable, was foolish. I understand that Johnson didn't want to look weak. But sometimes the world really does change and you need to recognise that.
As Nissan are responding rationally to a set of circumstances not of their making, this can't be construed as blackmail. The interesting thing is that Nissan probably will stay in Sunderland if there's a reasonably open arrangement agreed with the EU and not if there isn't. So there is value in enabling what they want.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
A good sounding theory.
The police can never be an entirely rational economic actor, unless you think the nation can do without police forces. It's like allowing hospitals to go bankrupt under PFI here (Won't be allowed), or err Detroit. Either there's a bailout of sorts arriving or there are severe negative consequences for society if they aren't. The police aren't a corporation - it is the first duty of Gov't to protect it's citizens and the police are a neccessary part of that.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Well, that's rather the point. If a police department did not clean up its act, the politicians would have to as they fund the police departments.
And it would by no means be every police department. When I lived in Cape Charles, VA the police department was 6 people. Everyone in the town knew them by name. Maybe not the most efficient police department ever, but accepted by the community. That sort to department would not have much to fear.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
I was told by a friend at Imperial that the reason that quarantine on entry was being introduced was that in the track-and-trace environment, the case numbers are low enough and trackable for arrivals to make a significant difference.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
That is a good argument for nobody being liable for anything, ever.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Really?
Would you like to explain how every other country in the world allows police departments to be sued and still function.
Or, for that matter, how policing happened before qualified immunity came into being in 1982.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
There are laws in at least a few states that allow those frivolously accused to bring suit for cost and damages not just against the false accuser, but also against the lawyer(s) who took on the frivolous case.
There has been a lot of talk about potential second waves etc but I have yet to see any evidence of this particular virus having anything like that anywhere in the world. It does seem to burn out somewhat for reasons as yet unclear. It may be that by August the world will look very different.
Indeed. The defence of the Wave Two theory is that it will come back in the autumn. Yet in countries where it is autumn/winter now (Oz, NZ, SA) it has not seemingly come back.
There is already a second wave in Iran (though I don't trust that their numbers are entirely accurate I don't know what advantage there would be in reporting a second wave), and probably some of the US states.
The idea that it will miraculously just disappear after one wave is complete cobblers.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
A good sounding theory.
The police can never be an entirely rational economic actor, unless you think the nation can do without police forces. It's like allowing hospitals to go bankrupt under PFI here (Won't be allowed), or err Detroit. Either there's a bailout of sorts arriving or there are severe negative consequences for society if they aren't. The police aren't a corporation - it is the first duty of Gov't to protect it's citizens and the police are a neccessary part of that.
This is a specious argument. Police departments in the states aren't separate legal entities. They're part of larger municipalities, who collectively and routinely pay out hundreds of millions in settlements.
I can accept an argument they should be paying more, so as to have some effect. But they aren't legally immune from civil recourse.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Well, that's rather the point. If a police department did not clean up its act, the politicians would have to as they fund the police departments.
And it would by no means be every police department. When I lived in Cape Charles, VA the police department was 6 people. Everyone in the town knew them by name. Maybe not the most efficient police department ever, but accepted by the community. That sort to department would not have much to fear.
What safeguards would there be to stop criminals paralyzing that department with trumped up compensation claims and looting Cape Charles Virginia in the anarchy that followed.
The forces of law and order wouldn't need to have done much wrong to be effectively taken out under these proposals, it seems to me.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
There is a lot of noise atm which means if they were minded to do it then yes I think they could.
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Dunno, to be honest. The WTO loons have taken over the asylum, so expecting them to engage with reality is a bit optimistic. What is clear is that the UK is in an incredibly weak position, entirely of its own making:
1. The UK government cannot allow itself to be blackmailed by a private company
2. Refusing to make changes to the timings, especially when CV-19 lost us four months of an already tight timetable, was foolish. I understand that Johnson didn't want to look weak. But sometimes the world really does change and you need to recognise that.
I don't see how highlighting the consequences of a decision is blackmail - the Government can still make whatever decision it wants, the only difference is that the Government won't be able to fake surprise if the factory closes.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
I was told by a friend at Imperial that the reason that quarantine on entry was being introduced was that in the track-and-trace environment, the case numbers are low enough and trackable for arrivals to make a significant difference.
Yes, that makes good sense, but what doesn't make sense is to make it a blanket measure, applicable to people coming from countries with much lower infection rates than we have.
It's perfectly normal to have rules restricting visitors from areas of infection for various diseases - for example, many countries require proof of vaccination for any incoming traveller who has recently been in a country where Yellow Fever is found.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
That is a good argument for nobody being liable for anything, ever.
UK context - this exact argument was used to oppose legal liability for the NHS. Even the spectre of US lawyers setting up no-win-no-fee ambulance chasing to DestroyTheNHS.
You keep saying most Leavers want a WTO Brexit. I doubt this. My sense is they want an end to Free Movement, first and foremost, and after that they will not be fussed about the detailed terms of the trading arrangements. Of course what they don't want are the job losses that would come with a WTO Brexit - therefore we could conclude that a WTO Brexit is by definition not an object of desire for them.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
Was he saying this while kneeling on the neck of a suspect until they died?
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It is my concern, because from the pictures I have seen it really doesn't take much to to persuade people to loot fifth avenue shops and shoot black ex-police officers trying to protect black-owned businesses.
"Former residents of Hong Kong who hold a British Dependent Territories, British Nationals (Overseas) or British Overseas passport qualify for registration."
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
While I can believe that only 15% of WW2 US military fired their weapons, I find the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph difficult to accept. While, as earlier, my knowledge of history is sketchy, my reading suggests that humans, when reasonably motivated do not find it at all difficult to kill others of their species.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It is my concern, because from the pictures I have seen it really doesn't take much to to persuade people to loot fifth avenue shops and shoot black ex-police officers trying to protect black-owned businesses.
So, your solution to some people behaving badly is to make another set of people immune from the consequences of their actions.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
Was he saying this while kneeling on the neck of a suspect until they died?
No he was saying it before going to the scene of the murder of a five year old black girl shot in a drive by shooting in a black neighbourhood. As he informed the press at the time.
"Former residents of Hong Kong who hold a British Dependent Territories, British Nationals (Overseas) or British Overseas passport qualify for registration."
Coventry council has been subject to an extreme amount of frivolous and vexatious litigation by the owners of Coventry City football club, SISU. I'm not sure how much good it's achieved except adding to the council taxpayers tab there or highly likely putting additional pressure on adult social care.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Depends whether it's framed as "more free holidays and less chance of dying at work" or "red tape strangling British business".
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Well, that's rather the point. If a police department did not clean up its act, the politicians would have to as they fund the police departments.
And it would by no means be every police department. When I lived in Cape Charles, VA the police department was 6 people. Everyone in the town knew them by name. Maybe not the most efficient police department ever, but accepted by the community. That sort to department would not have much to fear.
What safeguards would there be to stop criminals paralyzing that department with trumped up compensation claims and looting Cape Charles Virginia in the anarchy that followed.
The forces of law and order wouldn't need to have done much wrong to be effectively taken out under these proposals, it seems to me.
That can easily be solved by making those bringing the case (and their lawyers) responsible for the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
No lawyer would bring a case that he thought would end up their bankruptcy. (Bear in mind that bankrupt lawyers cannot practice.)
You keep saying most Leavers want a WTO Brexit. I doubt this. My sense is they want an end to Free Movement, first and foremost, and after that they will not be fussed about the detailed terms of the trading arrangements. Of course what they don't want are the job losses that would come with a WTO Brexit - therefore we could conclude that a WTO Brexit is by definition not an object of desire for them.
@HYUFD is going to whip out his polling on WTO despite nobody understanding what WTO even means in the real world.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It is my concern, because from the pictures I have seen it really doesn't take much to to persuade people to loot fifth avenue shops and shoot black ex-police officers trying to protect black-owned businesses.
So, your solution to some people behaving badly is to make another set of people immune from the consequences of their actions.
I'm not seeing the connection.
I'm not offering a solution. I am merely questioning your solution. A solution I fear is that is more dangerous that the situation we have now, for law abiding blacks and whites alike.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Well, quite. No public appetite here for "Singapore on Thames". And I don't think Johnson will be going down that route. I think we'll end up with Soft Brexit.
You keep saying most Leavers want a WTO Brexit. I doubt this. My sense is they want an end to Free Movement, first and foremost, and after that they will not be fussed about the detailed terms of the trading arrangements. Of course what they don't want are the job losses that would come with a WTO Brexit - therefore we could conclude that a WTO Brexit is by definition not an object of desire for them.
@HYUFD is going to whip out his polling on WTO despite nobody understanding what WTO even means in the real world.
Well, quite. No public appetite here for "Singapore on Thames". And I don't think Johnson will be going down that route. I think we'll end up with Soft Brexit.
Dom has the brain to sell the pivot and stuff the ERG, still doesn't mean he should stay mind.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Well, that's rather the point. If a police department did not clean up its act, the politicians would have to as they fund the police departments.
And it would by no means be every police department. When I lived in Cape Charles, VA the police department was 6 people. Everyone in the town knew them by name. Maybe not the most efficient police department ever, but accepted by the community. That sort to department would not have much to fear.
What safeguards would there be to stop criminals paralyzing that department with trumped up compensation claims and looting Cape Charles Virginia in the anarchy that followed.
The forces of law and order wouldn't need to have done much wrong to be effectively taken out under these proposals, it seems to me.
That can easily be solved by making those bringing the case (and their lawyers) responsible for the costs of frivolous lawsuits.
No lawyer would bring a case that he thought would end up their bankruptcy. (Bear in mind that bankrupt lawyers cannot practice.)
Hmmn. I'd want to see it trialed somewhere before being rolled out.
You keep saying most Leavers want a WTO Brexit. I doubt this. My sense is they want an end to Free Movement, first and foremost, and after that they will not be fussed about the detailed terms of the trading arrangements. Of course what they don't want are the job losses that would come with a WTO Brexit - therefore we could conclude that a WTO Brexit is by definition not an object of desire for them.
@HYUFD is going to whip out his polling on WTO despite nobody understanding what WTO even means in the real world.
Well let's see if he does. He doesn't always. He surprises sometimes.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It is my concern, because from the pictures I have seen it really doesn't take much to to persuade people to loot fifth avenue shops and shoot black ex-police officers trying to protect black-owned businesses.
So, your solution to some people behaving badly is to make another set of people immune from the consequences of their actions.
I'm not seeing the connection.
I'm not offering a solution. I am merely questioning your solution. A solution I fear is that is more dangerous that the situation we have now, for law abiding blacks and whites alike.
The problem is that people behave badly when their actions have no consequence. You see that with looting, when people feel they are unlikely to get caught. And you see that when police departments have no economic incentive to weed out those likely to commit brutality. (And you see that with grooming gangs.)
If you shield entities from the conseuquences of their actions, you see bad behaviour.
Now, there may need to be a way to stop frivilous lawsuits. But that is a seperate issue.
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
The big one is State Aid. The Johnson government wants to be able to throw money at high profile businesses or businesses owned by their cronies. Also taxation - more on exemptions than rates.
It isn't necessarily that they object to maintaining environmental, social and employment protections. They don't want to be told what to do by Europe.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
While I can believe that only 15% of WW2 US military fired their weapons, I find the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph difficult to accept. While, as earlier, my knowledge of history is sketchy, my reading suggests that humans, when reasonably motivated do not find it at all difficult to kill others of their species.
Dunno, I think I can accept it. There was a thing on Dunkirk a week ago based mainly on interviews with veterans. One old guy spoke quite movingly about the first time he killed a man and the awful realisation that swept over him as it dawned on him what he'd done.
Of course troops in long periods of combat become inured to it, and seeing their comrades killed also hardens their hearts. The problem appears to be that many ex forces US police have already been hardened by these processes including deliberate desensitizing, and then hit the streets.
Boris Johnson will chair this afternoon's UK daily press briefing at Downing Street, expected to start at 17.00 BST.
The prime minister will be joined in No 10 by Professor Chris Whitty, England's chief medical officer and Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK government's chief scientific adviser.
How many questions on Big Dom are we going to get today?
One for @MaxPB, it seems that we now have some details for the clawback rules for coronavirus grants. They seem pretty vindictive if the company was on the brink anyway...
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
You have to hand it to Doctor Fox. He isn't a slave to any kind of fashion. During quiet, dull times of sensible, managerial government he chose to be a fringe loony. Now they're everywhere, and all is drama, he's gone for the rational common sense approach. Swim against the tide, sir!
Surely by the logic used by Trump supporters, the all-American solution to the problem of black men being roughed up and killed by police officers is to issue all black men with automatic weapons, so they don't have to take this shit?
You keep saying most Leavers want a WTO Brexit. I doubt this. My sense is they want an end to Free Movement, first and foremost, and after that they will not be fussed about the detailed terms of the trading arrangements. Of course what they don't want are the job losses that would come with a WTO Brexit - therefore we could conclude that a WTO Brexit is by definition not an object of desire for them.
@HYUFD is going to whip out his polling on WTO despite nobody understanding what WTO even means in the real world.
Which is why he likes the polling...
4 years later he will say "If people didnt want WTO they shouldnt have told pollsters they did". Governing by opinion poll is ridiculous, if temporarily popular!
Comments
But they won't.
I am in agreement with you. The UK won't exit the EU to "WTO terms". Most likely? We will get some kind of agreement about an agreement which keeps things as is but satisfies the WTO loons.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Even if this wasn't the case, Neil Gorsuch would - I would have thought - be entirely in favour of such a change. On the subject of police overreach and brutality, he very often sides with his liberal colleges.
A true legend of PB.
One of the greatest posters of all time in my opinion.
His astute analyses put the best of us to shame.
This just shows that a civil remedy alone isn't a solution. There has to be a culture of vigorous civilian supervision, which doesn't really exist there.
https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1268168232168493058?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1268119347324690432
Pity there's no market on it. Perhaps there will be nearer the time.
https://twitter.com/eleanormaryy/status/1267941426861608968
https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1268186333425647617
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
"Last week the head of England's testing programme, Dido Harding, said 84% of tests at drive-in centres were returned within 24 hours, and 95% within 48 hours."
Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52906909
I could easily write an email saying, do you believe nobody should be jailed and that the police should not attempt to pursue individuals, regardless of their actions, because BLM is such an important cause and there is historic justification for violent reaction #DefundThePolice #AbolishPrisons
They may get slightly more of a free pass for covid19, but even that will be judged on the long economic tail by that stage, rather than the initial response.
There could (therefore) be an attempt to muddy the waters between the two.. but rightly or wrongly, blame for people feeling poor usually ends up at the door of the incumbent govt.
1. The UK government cannot allow itself to be blackmailed by a private company
2. Refusing to make changes to the timings, especially when CV-19 lost us four months of an already tight timetable, was foolish. I understand that Johnson didn't want to look weak. But sometimes the world really does change and you need to recognise that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
What you suggest is possible - but note the court only recently rejected the chance to review it:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-wont-hear-trio-of-cases-on-qualified-immunity-doctrine
It's a familiar pattern. An outrage occurs. Not always but usually, no cop gets sacked or really disciplined. Then a quiet payout months and years later.
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Police Officers in the US are simply not ending up in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout on a daily, weekly monthly or even yearly basis.
Part of the problem is that US police seem to believe that Simon Grubber and the boys are round every single corner.
The police can never be an entirely rational economic actor, unless you think the nation can do without police forces. It's like allowing hospitals to go bankrupt under PFI here (Won't be allowed), or err Detroit.
Either there's a bailout of sorts arriving or there are severe negative consequences for society if they aren't. The police aren't a corporation - it is the first duty of Gov't to protect it's citizens and the police are a neccessary part of that.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/jun/03/uk-coronavirus-live-keir-starmer-boris-johnson-lockdown-easing-pmqs-covid-19-latest-updates-news
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
And it would by no means be every police department. When I lived in Cape Charles, VA the police department was 6 people. Everyone in the town knew them by name. Maybe not the most efficient police department ever, but accepted by the community. That sort to department would not have much to fear.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1268186705846325249
Would you like to explain how every other country in the world allows police departments to be sued and still function.
Or, for that matter, how policing happened before qualified immunity came into being in 1982.
The idea that it will miraculously just disappear after one wave is complete cobblers.
I can accept an argument they should be paying more, so as to have some effect. But they aren't legally immune from civil recourse.
The forces of law and order wouldn't need to have done much wrong to be effectively taken out under these proposals, it seems to me.
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It's perfectly normal to have rules restricting visitors from areas of infection for various diseases - for example, many countries require proof of vaccination for any incoming traveller who has recently been in a country where Yellow Fever is found.
You keep saying most Leavers want a WTO Brexit. I doubt this. My sense is they want an end to Free Movement, first and foremost, and after that they will not be fussed about the detailed terms of the trading arrangements. Of course what they don't want are the job losses that would come with a WTO Brexit - therefore we could conclude that a WTO Brexit is by definition not an object of desire for them.
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
No, me neither.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/register-vote-and-update-your-details#commonwealth
"Former residents of Hong Kong who hold a British Dependent Territories, British Nationals (Overseas) or British Overseas passport qualify for registration."
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1268195410998427658
I'm not seeing the connection.
https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1268170848139173889?s=20
I'm not sure how much good it's achieved except adding to the council taxpayers tab there or highly likely putting additional pressure on adult social care.
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1268178508255297538?s=20
No lawyer would bring a case that he thought would end up their bankruptcy. (Bear in mind that bankrupt lawyers cannot practice.)
Does shielding someone from the legal consequences of their actions make them:
(a) perform better
(b) perform worse
Answers on a postcard please.
https://jackmckew.github.io/pandas_alive/
I fail to see why Police malpractice should be any different.
If you shield entities from the conseuquences of their actions, you see bad behaviour.
Now, there may need to be a way to stop frivilous lawsuits. But that is a seperate issue.
It isn't necessarily that they object to maintaining environmental, social and employment protections. They don't want to be told what to do by Europe.
Of course troops in long periods of combat become inured to it, and seeing their comrades killed also hardens their hearts. The problem appears to be that many ex forces US police have already been hardened by these processes including deliberate desensitizing, and then hit the streets.
The prime minister will be joined in No 10 by Professor Chris Whitty, England's chief medical officer and Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK government's chief scientific adviser.
How many questions on Big Dom are we going to get today?
https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-risks-government-announces-clawback-regime/
During quiet, dull times of sensible, managerial government he chose to be a fringe loony.
Now they're everywhere, and all is drama, he's gone for the rational common sense approach.
Swim against the tide, sir!
https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1268091058468110337