politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s the government going to do about the demand from the US

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited June 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s the government going to do about the demand from the US to quiz Prince Andrew?

Anybody who has watched the latest Netflix series on Jeffrey Bernstein will be struck how often Prince Andrew features with the US paedophile who committed suicide whilst in prison and, inevitably the police inquiry was going to focus at some stage on the British royal.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    Lock him up.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    Does sovereign immunity apply to Randy Andy?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Andrew for Sacoolas.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,118
    edited June 2020
    The Epstein documentary on Netflix is worth a watch, although disappointing that they didn't explore the financial side further. But, anybody who went near this Epstein after the 2008, no excuses. A cursory glance of the case by any upstanding citizen would have them running a mile.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    FPT but more relevant here.

    God I hate people who look down on the common person.

    There’s a vignette about Prince Andrew’s childhood in this new book by the journalist Nigel Cawthorne that seems telling. The royal family were watching Coronation Street and as the barmaid Bet Lynch had an argument, Andrew cried: “Oh God, look at all those common people.” This two-tiered view of humanity was not something he shed as he aged, the book implies: there’s royalty and the plebs; his daughters and the girls abused by his paedophile friend.

    In Prince Andrew, Epstein and the Palace, Cawthorne charts Andrew’s descent from the “royal who could do no wrong” to the “pariah prince”. This is not a book teeming with revelations or even fresh interviews; instead it relies heavily on newspaper reports. However, seeing the scandal laid out in what will be excruciating detail for the palace still hits hard. Even a fervent royalist would be left thinking that Andrew is an egotistical oaf who chose not to see his friend’s abuse, and there are many who feel that the allegations against him should still be tested in court. What a fall from grace for a prince who was once the poster boy for the monarchy, a regal Harry Styles.



    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/culture/prince-andrew-epstein-and-the-palace-by-nigel-cawthorne-review-the-royal-pariah-b0x0kq0cc
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    It says "Jeffrey Bernstein" but I think that should be "Jeffrey Epstein"?

    Important to avoid mix-ups of this variety.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766
    QTWTAIN.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482
    It's a bit rich of the Americans really, considering they'd be able to question the man himself if they'd been slightly less careless in allowing him to 'commit suicide'.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,378
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT but more relevant here.

    God I hate people who look down on the common person.

    There’s a vignette about Prince Andrew’s childhood in this new book by the journalist Nigel Cawthorne that seems telling. The royal family were watching Coronation Street and as the barmaid Bet Lynch had an argument, Andrew cried: “Oh God, look at all those common people.” This two-tiered view of humanity was not something he shed as he aged, the book implies: there’s royalty and the plebs; his daughters and the girls abused by his paedophile friend.

    In Prince Andrew, Epstein and the Palace, Cawthorne charts Andrew’s descent from the “royal who could do no wrong” to the “pariah prince”. This is not a book teeming with revelations or even fresh interviews; instead it relies heavily on newspaper reports. However, seeing the scandal laid out in what will be excruciating detail for the palace still hits hard. Even a fervent royalist would be left thinking that Andrew is an egotistical oaf who chose not to see his friend’s abuse, and there are many who feel that the allegations against him should still be tested in court. What a fall from grace for a prince who was once the poster boy for the monarchy, a regal Harry Styles.



    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/culture/prince-andrew-epstein-and-the-palace-by-nigel-cawthorne-review-the-royal-pariah-b0x0kq0cc

    He does seem completely charmless.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,902
    Don't worry. The US are totally going to give us a trade deal biased in favour of us over themselves. Absolutely won't be looking for access to our pharma markets or pushing their weevil-infested food. Won't be concerned that we aren't handing HRH over to the FBI.

    Its Golden Hour for Brexiteers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    US Prosecutors should be allowed to talk to Prince Andrew over video conference the same as every other organisation in the world is doing right now.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does sovereign immunity apply to Randy Andy?

    I deduce from your question that you studied constitutional law at Cambridge.

    It does not.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    FPT:
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    The more interesting question (and one for the lawyers on here) is "Given the one-sided UK/US deportation treaty, can Patel NOT deport to the US for questioning?"

    For the Tories to ship out a Royal would be normally be unthinkable and the swollen prostates of the Daily Mail Letters Page would be outraged, nay inflamed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766
    https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1269919586788552705
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,118
    edited June 2020
    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    Ok, so rather significantly skewed towards white ripped down statue. My criticism of tweet still stands. Student protests were skewed towards white people and got equally criticised. Remember Gilmour Jnr swinging from the Cenotaph was the poster child for all that was wrong with the student protests.

    My point was the criticism by the government of thuggery isn't race based or new. Student smashed up London were denounced, same with anti-capitalist.

    Remain marches, didn't, because they were extremely well behaved.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482
    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    FPT:
    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:



    NickPalmer said:

    Statue ethics - I'm probably not alone in having no idea who 95% of the statues that I see represent, so starting point is that I don't care. If someone is widely admired by some and hated by others (Lenin in Ukraine seems a good example, and arguably Thatcher is too, but not Churchill), it seems fair to move the statue to somewhere out of the way where people who were fond of them can go and see it without winding up the others - putting the statue in a derisive theme park is trolling, though. Where the statue commemorates people now universally seen as disreputable - Jimmy Saville's elaborate gravestone for instance - then removal seems best. Arguably a slaver who later gave money to charity is in the second category, not the first.

    The issue of direct action vs democratic process is separate, and I'm usually not keen on the former, but I won't get worked up about a hunk of stone.

    I don't get worked up about hunks of stone but I do about the rule of law. A campaign to remove a statue using democratic processes because with modern sensibilities the good that the person did was outweighed by the bad is absolutely fair enough. No problem with that at all. Just because a statue has been there over 100 years doesn't give it any rights. It is, ultimately, a hunk of stone. But mob rule and vandalism are very bad things whether directed at a hunk of stone, a shop, some politician or 10 Downing Street. It should not be tolerated.
    I’m not a fan of mob rule. I’m also not a fan of apathetic majorities riding roughshod indefinitely over minorities. Majoritarianism usually has an ugly ending.

    There are other examples of aggressive majoritarianism just now, I suspect, but the most obvious example is eluding me.
    Majoritarianism is the weak point of democracy, I agree. There is an onus on the majority to find the least offensive or deleterious way of achieving what they want whilst respecting the views of the minority. If they do this there is a much better chance of the majority view becoming the basis of a new consensus on which society can move forward. If they don't then society is divided and weakened.
    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why. Let's hear what they'd like to see replace them, and put it into a manifesto that we can debate and consider.

    Let's have some polling on it. Let's see how different groups feel about it. Let's test the boundaries of public opinion, and hear the pros and cons from all walks of life.

    Let's have a royal or independent commission. Let's hear from all sides and parts of the community. Let's understand what really holds people back and how things make them feel, and what does not. Let's hear what their priorities and solutions are. What matters and what does not.

    Because so far the language seems to be one of eternal conflict: targeting "all forms" of racism, for example, without saying what these forms are, whether they are, why they should be removed, and what takes its place. There's no sign of a positive proposal of what would represent peace and a new stability, just the rhetoric of the fight.

    We still don't know who was involved in pulling this statute down, or why - still less what their motives were, who they purported to represent, and indeed whether they were represent of those the groups they purported to represent.

    That's why we have democracy, for the dialogue and understanding. Not mob rule, where the most aggressive and organised win through strength of violence.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766
    https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1269929202494705665

    It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited June 2020
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1269919586788552705

    Not that the silly hypocrite will go so far as to end the careers of Labour MPs like Gardiner and Duffield as he had demanded for Cummings, of course.

    Nor will he take any action against Labour MPs like Whittome who explicitly 'celebrate' illegal acts of vandalism - despite having been the DPP!

    Loooooong way to go before Labour is anywhere near deCorbynized...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    https://twitter.com/covid19uk20/status/1269932856480010240
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914
    A Beta website for those interested in Covid-19 data with drilldowns and graphs, based on PHE, PHW and ONS data.
    It's not designed for small screens and is running on a not very powerful server, so I hope it's popular but not too popular.
    Any helpful comments to admin@verify-it.co.uk

    https://verify-it-c19data.co.uk/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    The best thing is that a majority of the frothers on Labour’s side live in very safe Labour city constituencies. If they decide not to vote for Keir, and go Green or something, I doubt it will make too much of a difference to the seat total. The marginals are much more important.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Casino_Royale said:

    FPT:

    DavidL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:



    NickPalmer said:

    Statue ethics - I'm probably not alone in having no idea who 95% of the statues that I see represent, so starting point is that I don't care. If someone is widely admired by some and hated by others (Lenin in Ukraine seems a good example, and arguably Thatcher is too, but not Churchill), it seems fair to move the statue to somewhere out of the way where people who were fond of them can go and see it without winding up the others - putting the statue in a derisive theme park is trolling, though. Where the statue commemorates people now universally seen as disreputable - Jimmy Saville's elaborate gravestone for instance - then removal seems best. Arguably a slaver who later gave money to charity is in the second category, not the first.

    The issue of direct action vs democratic process is separate, and I'm usually not keen on the former, but I won't get worked up about a hunk of stone.

    I don't get worked up about hunks of stone but I do about the rule of law. A campaign to remove a statue using democratic processes because with modern sensibilities the good that the person did was outweighed by the bad is absolutely fair enough. No problem with that at all. Just because a statue has been there over 100 years doesn't give it any rights. It is, ultimately, a hunk of stone. But mob rule and vandalism are very bad things whether directed at a hunk of stone, a shop, some politician or 10 Downing Street. It should not be tolerated.
    I’m not a fan of mob rule. I’m also not a fan of apathetic majorities riding roughshod indefinitely over minorities. Majoritarianism usually has an ugly ending.

    There are other examples of aggressive majoritarianism just now, I suspect, but the most obvious example is eluding me.
    Majoritarianism is the weak point of democracy, I agree. There is an onus on the majority to find the least offensive or deleterious way of achieving what they want whilst respecting the views of the minority. If they do this there is a much better chance of the majority view becoming the basis of a new consensus on which society can move forward. If they don't then society is divided and weakened.
    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why. Let's hear what they'd like to see replace them, and put it into a manifesto that we can debate and consider.

    Let's have some polling on it. Let's see how different groups feel about it. Let's test the boundaries of public opinion, and hear the pros and cons from all walks of life.

    Let's have a royal or independent commission. Let's hear from all sides and parts of the community. Let's understand what really holds people back and how things make them feel, and what does not. Let's hear what their priorities and solutions are. What matters and what does not.

    Because so far the language seems to be one of eternal conflict: targeting "all forms" of racism, for example, without saying what these forms are, whether they are, why they should be removed, and what takes its place. There's no sign of a positive proposal of what would represent peace and a new stability, just the rhetoric of the fight.

    We still don't know who was involved in pulling this statute down, or why - still less what their motives were, who they purported to represent, and indeed whether they were represent of those the groups they purported to represent.

    That's why we have democracy, for the dialogue and understanding. Not mob rule, where the most aggressive and organised win through strength of violence.
    Which is what I said in my reply to @Nick_Palmer
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/covid19uk20/status/1269932856480010240

    Not a word to say about the tens of thousands of 'protesters' engaging in massive super-spreader events then, and cheered on by Labour MPs?

    What a fucking surprise!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1269933826068942849
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,118
    edited June 2020
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1269919586788552705

    Or just a smarter politician more willing to lie / bend his principles, who realises you can't do anything if you aren't in power. It was why McDonnell was much more dangerous than Jezza (not that I think Starmer is a terrorist sympathiser like McIRA).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,902
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1269929202494705665

    It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.

    Hang on, isn't Mendoza the Force behind The Canary? She's attacking Labour for institutional AS -thought her lot denied that...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    IshmaelZ said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does sovereign immunity apply to Randy Andy?

    I deduce from your question that you studied constitutional law at Cambridge.

    It does not.
    I know our monarch and her family has a lot of exemptions not available to ordinary people.

    I mean she was a tax dodger until quite recently.

    Income taxes were for common people.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    edited June 2020
    The statuophiles have the big guns coming out for them now.

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1269719196948140037?s=20

    Tbh if a statue that burnishes the reputation of a slavery profiteer is being presented as 'a symbol of power', it rather makes my fingers itch for the steel cable and sledgehammer.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798
    Looks like the transatlantic trade in unsavoury chickens may be in both directions.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1269919586788552705

    I think this subject creates a problem for him. As does most identity politics. He's simultaneously annoyed the far left voters by not siding with the anarchists and annoyed the centrists by not being tough on them.

    Protests and riots like this are a Godsend for the Tories, voters will always look to them rather than Labour on law and order. Starmer will hope it all goes away asap.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Beibheirli_C said:

    The more interesting question (and one for the lawyers on here) is "Given the one-sided UK/US deportation treaty, can Patel NOT deport to the US for questioning?"

    For the Tories to ship out a Royal would be normally be unthinkable and the swollen prostates of the Daily Mail Letters Page would be outraged, nay inflamed.

    What other disabilities shall we have a laugh about?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482
    BluestBlue said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/covid19uk20/status/1269932856480010240

    Not a word to say about the tens of thousands of 'protesters' engaging in massive super-spreader events then, and cheered on by Labour MPs?

    What a fucking surprise!
    That poster just looks AWFUL now. What happens if thousands break the rules together then you silly twunts?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    DavidL said:

    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.

    in a sports car with the warm wind in his hair?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,378
    RochdalePioneers said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1269929202494705665

    It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.

    Hang on, isn't Mendoza the Force behind The Canary? She's attacking Labour for institutional AS -thought her lot denied that...
    She probably thinks Labour only became institutionally racist when Jeremy Corbyn stepped down.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Casino_Royale said:



    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why.

    https://twitter.com/RoRyxotic/status/1269698079000846340
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    Pulpstar said:

    US Prosecutors should be allowed to talk to Prince Andrew over video conference the same as every other organisation in the world is doing right now.

    Based on past cases, the preferred method for US law enforcement seems to be to get people deported to the US, throw them in jail, have a look at the evidence over a period of some years then either throw away the key or send them back wherever they came from.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798
    Theuniondivvie said:

    The statuophiles have the big guns coming out for them now.

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1269719196948140037?s=20

    Tbh if a statue that burnishes the reputation a slavery profiteer is being presented as 'a symbol of power', it rather makes my fingers itch for the steel cable and sledgehammer.

    That statue will never go back to where it was. The best it can hope for is to be erected in some kind of garden of shame.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    DavidL said:

    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.

    Only if prince Philip can organize it!
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Dura_Ace said:

    Casino_Royale said:



    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why.

    https://twitter.com/RoRyxotic/status/1269698079000846340
    God, she stuffed your lot up good and proper, didn't she? Decades and decades later and the left are still stewing in impotent rage about the Iron Lady :lol:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    Theuniondivvie said:

    The statuophiles have the big guns coming out for them now.

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1269719196948140037?s=20

    Tbh if a statue that burnishes the reputation of a slavery profiteer is being presented as 'a symbol of power', it rather makes my fingers itch for the steel cable and sledgehammer.

    Agalmatophiles, please.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    edited June 2020
    nichomar said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.

    Only if prince Philip can organize it!
    Not Chris Grayling? He’s good at organising things.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,118
    edited June 2020
    This is how we got riots in 2011...

    "We took a tactical decision that to stop people stop doing the act may have caused further disorder, so the safest thing to do was to allow it to take place," he said.

    Supt Andy Bennett said although he was "disappointed, he did understand" as the statue had caused "a lot of angst" for the city's black community.

    "We took a tactical decision that to stop people stop doing the act may have caused further disorder, so the safest thing to do was to allow it to take place," he said.

    ------------

    Are all statues people don't like fair game now and the police will just step back and allow it to happen in the name of community relations. It sets a dangerous prescedent.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    Dura_Ace said:

    Casino_Royale said:



    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why.

    https://twitter.com/RoRyxotic/status/1269698079000846340
    That should be Colston-ed on aesthetic grounds alone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    https://twitter.com/hannah_natanson/status/1269678326538534914
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Gallowgate said:

    nichomar said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.

    Only if prince Philip can organize it!
    Not Chris Grayling? He’s good at organising things.
    Wouldn’t achieve the desired outcome
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    But I was told by PB.com that the protests would lead to the suburbs turning on the Dems.....

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1269934704532295681
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    Nigelb said:

    https://twitter.com/hannah_natanson/status/1269678326538534914

    The law of unintended consequences aye. The optics are going to be bad when/if this “wall” is taken down.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Dura_Ace said:

    Casino_Royale said:



    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why.

    https://twitter.com/RoRyxotic/status/1269698079000846340
    Gotta love how she winds up the fascist left so much! Best PM in our lifetimes I suspect.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    It is an uncomfortable truth that US freedom riders, MLK's boycotts, the Suffragettes, trade unionists trying to create safe places of work and many, many others were deemed to be unpopular law breakers at the time stirring up trouble. For someone like me, who instinctively supports the rule of law and opposes vigilantism, anarchy and vandalism such as we saw yesterday, there is a need to be very careful about when upholding the law simply becomes upholding a morally indefensible status quo. I don't agree with Philip about this but I certainly have not lost respect for him or the viewpoint that he is propounding.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    If the Home Secretary is the face of BoZo's response to the "thugs" in the street, can Cummings really sack her in the reshuffle?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    Scott_xP said:

    If the Home Secretary is the face of BoZo's response to the "thugs" in the street, can Cummings really sack her in the reshuffle?

    Yes.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    “The question for the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is whether she seeks to shield a senior member of the Royal Family or agree to the US requests. Taking the former course could have all sorts of other ramifications to UK-US relations.”

    Brexit, the AV referendum and Better Together show that the Conservative Party long ago stopped caring about nurturing long-term relationships.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Nigelb said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    The statuophiles have the big guns coming out for them now.

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1269719196948140037?s=20

    Tbh if a statue that burnishes the reputation of a slavery profiteer is being presented as 'a symbol of power', it rather makes my fingers itch for the steel cable and sledgehammer.

    Agalmatophiles, please.
    Or 'eikonophiles'. Perhaps even 'eikonerasts' if they're feeling really frisky.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    Nigelb said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    The statuophiles have the big guns coming out for them now.

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1269719196948140037?s=20

    Tbh if a statue that burnishes the reputation of a slavery profiteer is being presented as 'a symbol of power', it rather makes my fingers itch for the steel cable and sledgehammer.

    Agalmatophiles, please.
    Thanks, I was wondering what the correct term was!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,929
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT but more relevant here.

    God I hate people who look down on the common person.

    There’s a vignette about Prince Andrew’s childhood in this new book by the journalist Nigel Cawthorne that seems telling. The royal family were watching Coronation Street and as the barmaid Bet Lynch had an argument, Andrew cried: “Oh God, look at all those common people.” This two-tiered view of humanity was not something he shed as he aged, the book implies: there’s royalty and the plebs; his daughters and the girls abused by his paedophile friend.

    In Prince Andrew, Epstein and the Palace, Cawthorne charts Andrew’s descent from the “royal who could do no wrong” to the “pariah prince”. This is not a book teeming with revelations or even fresh interviews; instead it relies heavily on newspaper reports. However, seeing the scandal laid out in what will be excruciating detail for the palace still hits hard. Even a fervent royalist would be left thinking that Andrew is an egotistical oaf who chose not to see his friend’s abuse, and there are many who feel that the allegations against him should still be tested in court. What a fall from grace for a prince who was once the poster boy for the monarchy, a regal Harry Styles.



    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/culture/prince-andrew-epstein-and-the-palace-by-nigel-cawthorne-review-the-royal-pariah-b0x0kq0cc

    And there was me thinking Air Miles Andy was a term of affection.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    Looks like the transatlantic trade in unsavoury chickens may be in both directions.

    I think that we have a winner.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    Until the US hand over Anne Sacoolas for questioning we should not hand over Prince Andrew to them
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1269906098368262144?s=20

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1269921596875169797?s=20
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,378
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    I missed this over the weekend:

    UK coronavirus victims have lain undetected at home for two weeks
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/07/uk-coronavirus-victims-have-lain-undetected-at-home-for-two-weeks
    ...People have died at home alone of Covid-19 during the pandemic and not been found for up to two weeks, doctors who have investigated such deaths have said.

    They have only been discovered after a relative, friend or neighbour raised the alarm and have in many cases gone undetected for so long that their body has started to decompose.

    Campaigners for the elderly said the phenomenon highlighted the vulnerability of isolated older people living on their own with little family support and the risks being run by the large numbers of patients who have avoided hospitals and GP surgeries in recent months through fear of coronavirus.

    “People have lain undiscovered during the pandemic for seven to 14 days,” said Dr Mike Osborn, a senior pathologist in London and the chair of the death investigation committee at the Royal College of Pathologists.

    “I’ve seen plenty of such cases like this, where bodies are decomposed, in the Covid outbreak and also done postmortems in ‘query Covid’ cases [where the disease was suspected].”...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    We all have different perspectives on what is right. That's why we have democracy and the rule of law - we agreed that not allowing individuals to act on their own free will of what they believe to be right was the right thing to do a very long time ago.

    Let's see where this ends up now the zeitgeist has been released. I suspect you won't like it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Theuniondivvie said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.

    in a sports car with the warm wind in his hair?
    I was thinking more through a tunnel. With a drunk driver.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Are all statues people don't like fair game now and the police will just step back and allow it to happen in the name of community relations. It sets a dangerous prescedent.

    The police were pretty prompt pulling someone off the Cenotaph last night - so it is to be hoped "lessons have been learned". Overall I'd say our police are doing rather better than those in the US.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    nunu2 said:

    But I was told by PB.com that the protests would lead to the suburbs turning on the Dems.....

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1269934704532295681

    If they turn violent they will

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1269843069974740992?s=20
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,118
    HYUFD said:

    /twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1269906098368262144?s=20

    Twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1269921596875169797?s=20

    And now we go over to Jezza....oh look he is rallying against the evil Tories giving a contract to a private company.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    HYUFD said:

    Until the US hand over Anne Sacoolas for questioning we should not hand over Prince Andrew to them

    I think you’ll find that your new “red wall” voters are very much not in favour of people like Jeffrey Epstein and his friends. I doubt there is much, if any, patriotic furore over handing Prince Andrew over to the US authorities for investigation. I think you’re very much out of touch.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    Brom said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Casino_Royale said:



    If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why.

    https://twitter.com/RoRyxotic/status/1269698079000846340
    Gotta love how she winds up the fascist left so much! Best PM in our lifetimes I suspect.
    Very indifferent piece of statuary, though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1269931042728796161?s=20
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Have you developed a crystal meth habit?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    I can't say there are any statues or symbols in the UK I'd like to see pulled down. I don't think in that way. I think adding to them or supplementing them (to reflect the complexity and diversity of our history) is the right thing to do.

    The silliest one was Alex Salmon'd "melt in the sun" one at Heriot Watt, but I just found it hilarious as a monument to vanity.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    HYUFD said:

    nunu2 said:

    But I was told by PB.com that the protests would lead to the suburbs turning on the Dems.....

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1269934704532295681

    If they turn violent they will

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1269843069974740992?s=20
    They have already turned violent. You keep trying to spin this poll into something it’s not to fit your narrative but it’s not working.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,036
    Gallowgate said:

    The best thing is that a majority of the frothers on Labour’s side live in very safe Labour city constituencies. If they decide not to vote for Keir, and go Green or something, I doubt it will make too much of a difference to the seat total. The marginals are much more important.

    Looks like Starmer has adopted a strategy aimed at getting the Entryists to feck off back to the SWP.

    It will seem strange to celebrate the success of a decline in membership.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,680
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
    You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    SandyRentool said:

    Gallowgate said:

    The best thing is that a majority of the frothers on Labour’s side live in very safe Labour city constituencies. If they decide not to vote for Keir, and go Green or something, I doubt it will make too much of a difference to the seat total. The marginals are much more important.

    Looks like Starmer has adopted a strategy aimed at getting the Entryists to feck off back to the SWP.

    It will seem strange to celebrate the success of a decline in membership.
    For the few not the many
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Credit to Kier Starmer for his response today.

    He knows what he's doing, and he's doing the right thing.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482
    Personally I agree with the poster that said he should talk to investigators by videolink. Whilst (sadly) I don't think it's feasible to 'give him up', I don't see an issue with him being asked to help with their enquiries and be in the hotseat for a bit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IshmaelZ said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Have you developed a crystal meth habit?
    No. I don't take illegal drugs.

    That's because its my choice not to, not because of the law.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
    That's a recipe for societal breakdown and anarchy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Theuniondivvie said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic just wondering if Andrew fancies a drive around Paris.

    in a sports car with the warm wind in his hair?
    Dear old Marianne, her survival is the best bit of covid news of all.

    If only for the opening couplet, this should be the PB theme song

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofNPkGlI38
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,118
    edited June 2020
    CarlottaVance said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Are all statues people don't like fair game now and the police will just step back and allow it to happen in the name of community relations. It sets a dangerous prescedent.

    The police were pretty prompt pulling someone off the Cenotaph last night - so it is to be hoped "lessons have been learned". Overall I'd say our police are doing rather better than those in the US.

    I hope so. Our lot are generally much better than the US, just see how they kettle the hardcore. However, i am concerned that there is a toxic mix of a genuine issue, lots of people with no school, college or work to be keeping busy with, long summer nights and a police force that won't want to be seen inflaming the situation.

    2011 was a result of similar factors. The police need to be in as soon as protests aren't peaceful and upholding the law. 2011 they went way too softly softly for the first 2-3 days and then it spread to several cities, as the real scumbags could see the police were going to let them get away with a lot more than usual.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Are all statues people don't like fair game now and the police will just step back and allow it to happen in the name of community relations. It sets a dangerous prescedent.

    Glasgow police have long taken a relaxed attitude to pompous statues.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_the_Duke_of_Wellington,_Glasgow
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited June 2020
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
    You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
    And you're ok with black people not being allowed to take the same public transport as white people?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
    You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
    No I'm not. They're hurting others, not non-violent protest against inanimate objects, if you don't see the difference then I'm not sure how I can explain it to you.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    I do think Andrew should face the music but it would be slightly galling to see us co-operating with the US given their refusal to co-operate with us on a similar matter recently. As for a prediction - no, he will not be facing the music. He will be protected imo.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,242
    Brom said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1269919586788552705

    I think this subject creates a problem for him. As does most identity politics. He's simultaneously annoyed the far left voters by not siding with the anarchists and annoyed the centrists by not being tough on them.

    Protests and riots like this are a Godsend for the Tories, voters will always look to them rather than Labour on law and order. Starmer will hope it all goes away asap.
    A large chunk of the far left voters live in very safe Labour seats so Starmer can afford to lose some of them (providing he gains votes back in the centre). The problem Labour had under Corbyn in 2017 was that they gained votes but often piled them up even higher in safe Labour seats. Even in 2019 there are about 10 Labour seats that are safer than the safest Tory seat (e.g. Liverpool Walton voted 84.7% Labour)

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    DavidL said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    It is an uncomfortable truth that US freedom riders, MLK's boycotts, the Suffragettes, trade unionists trying to create safe places of work and many, many others were deemed to be unpopular law breakers at the time stirring up trouble. For someone like me, who instinctively supports the rule of law and opposes vigilantism, anarchy and vandalism such as we saw yesterday, there is a need to be very careful about when upholding the law simply becomes upholding a morally indefensible status quo. I don't agree with Philip about this but I certainly have not lost respect for him or the viewpoint that he is propounding.
    I'd agree with that - and add that the weight of the argument in the US is heavier still.
    Killer Mike expressed it well:
    ...I have nothing positive to say in this moment because I don’t want to be here. But, I’m responsible to be here because it wasn’t just Doctor King and people dressed nicely who marched and protested to progress this city and so many other cities...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
    That's a recipe for societal breakdown and anarchy.
    Sometimes society needs to break down a bit to be rebuilt better.

    What you call anarchy I call libertarianism.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    StuartDickson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Are all statues people don't like fair game now and the police will just step back and allow it to happen in the name of community relations. It sets a dangerous prescedent.

    Glasgow police have long taken a relaxed attitude to pompous statues.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_the_Duke_of_Wellington,_Glasgow
    Adam Smith and Lord Hume are both treated similarly on the Royal Mile.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    edited June 2020
    Theuniondivvie said:





    in a sports car with the warm wind in his hair?

    He had an XK8 when he was at Culdrose. Absolute dog shit motor.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    SandyRentool said:

    Gallowgate said:

    The best thing is that a majority of the frothers on Labour’s side live in very safe Labour city constituencies. If they decide not to vote for Keir, and go Green or something, I doubt it will make too much of a difference to the seat total. The marginals are much more important.

    Looks like Starmer has adopted a strategy aimed at getting the Entryists to feck off back to the SWP.

    It will seem strange to celebrate the success of a decline in membership.
    No loss... they had their chance and did nothing productive with it, but as usual they will blame everyone else for being ideologically pure enough
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Casino_Royale said:


    The silliest one was Alex Salmon'd "melt in the sun" one at Heriot Watt, but I just found it hilarious as a monument to vanity.

    And has been removed because the people who pay for the University fee paying students objected to it.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,680
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.

    The law is not the be all and end all.
    Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).

    Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.

    I have lost respect for you.
    My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.

    Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
    What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
    Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.

    The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
    You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
    No I'm not. They're hurting others, not non-violent protest against inanimate objects, if you don't see the difference then I'm not sure how I can explain it to you.
    You'd be happy with a terrorist act though if, as the IRA used to do, a warning was issued and everyone was cleared out beforehand?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    And those pulling down the statue were white.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396511/Moment-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-tear-statue-17th-century-slave-trader.html

    Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.

    This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
    It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    "to the full extent of the law"

    Is this rhetorical flourish or do you mean something specific by it?
This discussion has been closed.