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?
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.
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.
Plenty of Corbynista MPs there though. I presume they will continue to pump out the tweets egging on breaking the lockdown rules and criminal behaviour, but will remain in the party.
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?
It would depend upon the circumstances, but since terrorism hurts people and businesses then generally no, it would have to be for a very legitimate cause to justify that.
If there was a very legitimate cause in your eyes that made the price worth paying for you then you might choose to go ahead.
Society needs to ensure that people don't think the price is worth paying and that people aren't excluded enough to warrant them being willing to pay that price.
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.
Yes, I was sorry to see that the University is now minded to move it before the inevitable steps are taken to help Scottish Universities thrive. Ozymandius eat your heart out.
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.
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.
I think you will find very much that they want Harry Dunn's killer brought to justice first before we start handing over Prince Andrew for being too friendly with teenage girls.
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?
Not a big Nelson Mandela fan either, I take it?
I think the Mandela case is pretty clear cut: he was offering resistance to a hostile, occupying force in his own country.
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?
I mean what I say by it. There is a range of actions the police could take, from nothing, through a caution, to being prosecuted for all criminal acts for which there is evidence. Sometimes, understandably, the police are leniant. In this case I think that would be a mistake.
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.
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.
Plenty of Corbynista MPs there though. I presume they will continue to pump out the tweets egging on breaking the lockdown rules and criminal behaviour, but will remain in the party.
These would be the MPs who have been calling for compulsory reselection ballots.
Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for.
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.
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.
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.
I think you will find very much that they want Harry Dunn's killer brought to justice first before we start handing over Prince Andrew for being too friendly with teenage girls.
I think you're very much out of touch
They are two completely separate things. Do you really think people are in favour of standing in the way of victims of child abuse getting justice as a bargaining chip? Is that really what you are saying?
Nowhere in the US can have a "second wave " yet. They haven't ended the first. Poor journalism again. Also Iran.
I agree this is not a second wave but it does show that lockdown provisions do reduce the R rate and that removing them is something to be done with care. The fact we are looking 2 weeks back in time by the time we find more infections is particularly troubling. It will be very significant whether there is any rise in cases 2-4 weeks after some of the schools went back.
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.
I think you will find very much that they want Harry Dunn's killer brought to justice first before we start handing over Prince Andrew for being too friendly with teenage girls.
I think you're very much out of touch
They are two completely separate things. Do you really think people are in favour of standing in the way of victims of child abuse getting justice as a bargaining chip? Is that really what you are saying?
They are intricately linked. The US has effectively decided that an extradition treaty only works one way. We should therefore treat it as if it is null and void.
Personally I think Andy Pandy should be over in the US right now answering every question put to him but it is now time to stand up to the US bullying over extradition and say no more until they start to play fair.
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.
I think you will find very much that they want Harry Dunn's killer brought to justice first before we start handing over Prince Andrew for being too friendly with teenage girls.
I think you're very much out of touch
They are two completely separate things. Do you really think people are in favour of standing in the way of victims of child abuse getting justice as a bargaining chip? Is that really what you are saying?
HY doffs his cap to his betters. Even when they are self-evidently not.
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.
'...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.'
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.
I think you will find very much that they want Harry Dunn's killer brought to justice first before we start handing over Prince Andrew for being too friendly with teenage girls.
I think you're very much out of touch
They are two completely separate things. Do you really think people are in favour of standing in the way of victims of child abuse getting justice as a bargaining chip? Is that really what you are saying?
They are intricately linked. The US has effectively decided that an extradition treaty only works one way. We should therefore treat it as if it is null and void.
Personally I think Andy Pandy should be over in the US right now answering every question put to him but it is now time to stand up to the US bullying over extradition and say no more until they start to play fair.
Like I said, are you really suggesting that we stand in the way of victims of child abuse potentially getting answers in order to make a political point about an extradition treaty?
“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.
Prince Andrew in exchange for chlorine washed chicken? Seems like we get the better deal.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
Looks like disruptive protesting is a lot more effective in producing change than voting blue. Who'd have thought?
This is hilarious. Though not if you live in Minneapolis. Went on their news sites and the comments are from terrified citizens and workers. It's a violent city run by complete idiots by the looks of things. I certainly had sympathy for the Mayor after the abuse he got.
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
It’s almost like the world isn’t black and white and every issue is nuanced. Fancy that.
Although, as a Newcastle United fan, the world is black and white.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
How about we stand up to them when there's somebody we believe we morally shouldn't extradite (e.g. being prosecuted under an unjust law)?
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.
'...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.'
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
Yes I would agree about the potential Tory polling boost. the PM's comments are dominating the news right now and I think he struck the correct tone.
The tactics of the Met are novel and can why they came under critisicms. By avoiding any contentious moments or police brutality incidents they have probably won the PR battle. The public are now onside with the Police and the government so if there are further incidents I'd expect the rule of law to come down harder.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
I must be confusing with another city I looked at. Look at Portland though....they were down to only 18 new cases a day on 26th May, 146 yesterday.
Because of the high number of cases that have already occured compared to the current day to day test/death count, the start of any second wave is going to be buried deep in the statistical weeds if it is going to take place.
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.
No zeitgeist has been released, civil disorder has existed for hundreds of years and has led to a lot of progress.
We have law and democracy but they're not the be all and end all. The penalty for breaking the law isn't the death penalty or life in prison for minor infringements.
If people view breaking the law and paying the price to be a price worth paying for furthering their beliefs then that's their free choice. And its societies choice too to permit that and not to turn into an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed in all circumstances or else.
I must be confusing with another city I looked at. Look at Portland though....they were down to only 18 new cases a day on 26th May, 146 yesterday.
Because of the high number of cases that have already occured compared to the current day to day test/death count, the start of any second wave is going to be buried deep in the statistical weeds if it is going to take place.
That is a good point. I can also see the public making exactly the same mistake as the first time around, what it is only 50 new cases, 5 new deaths...well it is still only 100 new cases, 10 deaths, remember when we had 1000s every day.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
It won't go unoticed over the time though. The problem is so many of the 2019 intake were on the far left and when you have sub 200 MPs the whacky ones like Whittome, Sultana, Gardiner and Clive Lewis are going to get their fair share of airtime. It's a problem for Starmer in terms of convicing the public that Labour are a party for the average voter. He's wisely ditched them from his shad cab at least.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
I wonder why the media Blob won't say one word about a Labour MP celebrating illegal vandalism. Hmmm....
It's about time the public learned what these people really think, and what they would really do with power...
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 completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
NZ lifting all restrictions. Except air travel. Hmm.
Makes sense. Sorry but non-essential air travel is a bit bonkers at the moment. "I want a holiday" is fine but coming off the peak of this global pandemic the last thing you want to do is encourage lots of global moving of people. The heavy reduction in the numbers of foreign tourists is a negative impact both on the tourists and the places they visit, but its either take a continuation of this year's hit or risk an extended roller-coaster ride of further mass outbreaks.
I really really want to go visit the family in Spain in August as planned. But its nearly mid June and I'm not allowed out of England to visit my brother and his family in Scotland, so in what version of sanity should I be ok to fly (or drive in my case)1500 miles across Europe?
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
It’s almost like the world isn’t black and white and every issue is nuanced. Fancy that.
Although, as a Newcastle United fan, the world is black and white.
It's like a book. Black and white but red all over.
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 completely insane view point.
The strongly libertarian viewpoint often seems that way. I have a lot of sympathy with libertarian arguments, but as a guiding philosophy for organising a society composed of less than perfect individuals, it kind of sucks.
I was in favour of Huawei getting the contract, but I tend to agree. If we can get out of the nuclear stuff that's great, and high speed rail is pretty much an irrelevance now.
Let's spend it on the NHS instead build @MarqueeMark's tidal lagoons instead!
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 completely insane view point.
Its entirely sane and its a view we've had for hundreds of years.
There is a noble history for hundreds of years of law breakers achieving progress. And this country isn't nor hasn't been an authoritarian dictatorship were the law must be obeyed. Nor should it be. I wouldn't support that.
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
Did Corbyn win the argument on reflexive anti-Americanism too?
Isn't Andrew on record as saying he would be happy to help the American police with their enquiries? He should answer questions. I don't think that requires extradition though.
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 completely insane view point.
The strongly libertarian viewpoint often seems that way. I have a lot of sympathy with libertarian arguments, but as a guiding philosophy for organising a society composed of less than perfect individuals, it kind of sucks.
That way leads to anarchy and yes, is an insane point of view
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
It won't go unoticed over the time though. The problem is so many of the 2019 intake were on the far left and when you have sub 200 MPs the whacky ones like Whittome, Sultana, Gardiner and Clive Lewis are going to get their fair share of airtime. It's a problem for Starmer in terms of convicing the public that Labour are a party for the average voter. He's wisely ditched them from his shad cab at least.
It has forever been thus.
The Eric Heffers and Dave Nellists of this world come and go and we just laugh at them.
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
Did Corbyn win the argument on reflexive anti-Americanism too?
Isn't Andrew on record as saying he would be happy to help the American police with their enquiries? He should answer questions. I don't think that requires extradition though.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
It won't go unoticed over the time though. The problem is so many of the 2019 intake were on the far left and when you have sub 200 MPs the whacky ones like Whittome, Sultana, Gardiner and Clive Lewis are going to get their fair share of airtime. It's a problem for Starmer in terms of convicing the public that Labour are a party for the average voter. He's wisely ditched them from his shad cab at least.
Clive Lewis doesn't strike me as 'whacky'. Has his moments, but mostly perfectly reasonable.
I'm not sure that's as big a threat as they hope it is. If anything I'm sure ministers are relieved that they won't have to make that decision themselves and it gives them a great platform to invest in green technology and renewables.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
I wonder why the media Blob won't say one word about a Labour MP celebrating illegal vandalism. Hmmm....
It's about time the public learned what these people really think, and what they would really do with power...
I wholly disagree that historical artefacts should be wantonly destroyed by criminals posing as freedom fighters.
The important response was the measured one from Starmer. Were Corbyn still in the driving seat we doubtless would have had some equivocal, rambling nonsense. He isn't thankfully.
America is not far gone enough to give him another term. It will be so so ugly, this election, but he cannot win.
Would you like to join me and @Alistair and @Stocky in the TrumpToast club?
We've been stuck on 3 for too long. Criteria for joining - supreme confidence that he loses in November and a strong hunch it will not even be close.
No. I don't want to jinx my Betfair book.
- I get you.
I've just closed mine out for quite a decent profit.
But before you shout at me, here's the thinking. My USP has now become not so much Trump will lose - since I sense this dawning on people and about to become a clear consensus - but that it will NOT be close.
So, I'm waiting for the spreads and hoping my expectation of a probable Dem landslide at that point is still niche.
Then I sell his EC quote - 245? - for an eye-watering unit stake.
I must be confusing with another city I looked at. Look at Portland though....they were down to only 18 new cases a day on 26th May, 146 yesterday.
Because of the high number of cases that have already occured compared to the current day to day test/death count, the start of any second wave is going to be buried deep in the statistical weeds if it is going to take place.
That is a good point. I can also see the public making exactly the same mistake as the first time around, what it is only 50 new cases, 5 new deaths...well it is still only 100 new cases, 10 deaths, remember when we had 1000s every day.
Agreed. On the plus side, though, we do actually have somewhere near sufficient testing capacity, and are somewhere along developing a track and trace system.
So we might realise our mistakes a bit earlier on in the process this time ?
It would be nice if PBers were a little bit consistent. Should we stand up to the US or not? I don't want their stinking chicken, nor do I (with some regret) think we should deliver them a hogtied Prince Andrew.
How about we stand up to them when there's somebody we believe we morally shouldn't extradite (e.g. being prosecuted under an unjust law)?
Its not like the Americans refuse to extradite to us .....
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
It won't go unoticed over the time though. The problem is so many of the 2019 intake were on the far left and when you have sub 200 MPs the whacky ones like Whittome, Sultana, Gardiner and Clive Lewis are going to get their fair share of airtime. It's a problem for Starmer in terms of convicing the public that Labour are a party for the average voter. He's wisely ditched them from his shad cab at least.
Clive Lewis doesn't strike me as 'whacky'. Has his moments, but mostly perfectly reasonable.
If we were to list all the stuff Lewis has said that is either moronic and / or "whacky"....it would jam up a thread like Scott n Paste when he suffers the worst of his twitter tourettes.
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 completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
Where did I say extrajudicial punishments?
Laws have been broken throughout history. The Suffragettes got their vote through standing up and breaking the law. I'm happy to break the law if the law is in the wrong - I have never been a law and order obsessive.
As a fundamental act of principle I believe just laws should be followed and unjust laws should not. Would you do the wrong thing if the law compelled it, just because it was the law?
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 completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
Not a member. Never have been. Subcontracting the ability to think to a political party has rarely appealed (although I was an SDP founder member back in my youth).
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 completely insane view point.
Its entirely sane and its a view we've had for hundreds of years.
There is a noble history for hundreds of years of law breakers achieving progress. And this country isn't nor hasn't been an authoritarian dictatorship were the law must be obeyed. Nor should it be. I wouldn't support that.
Some things are more important than the law.
You've really gone off into the deep end to support your idiotic stance on Cummings. It's sad how one bad decision has led you down such an odd path that now you're advocating breaking the law if you feel like it. I feel like having the latest TV but I don't want to pay for it, should I go and rob John Lewis tomorrow?
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. ~ Martin Luther King
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 completely insane view point.
Its entirely sane and its a view we've had for hundreds of years.
There is a noble history for hundreds of years of law breakers achieving progress. And this country isn't nor hasn't been an authoritarian dictatorship were the law must be obeyed. Nor should it be. I wouldn't support that.
Some things are more important than the law.
You've really gone off into the deep end to support your idiotic stance on Cummings. It's sad how one bad decision has led you down such an odd path that now you're advocating breaking the law if you feel like it. I feel like having the latest TV but I don't want to pay for it, should I go and rob John Lewis tomorrow?
It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.
Getting attacked by the loonies helps Starmer immensely. He has to marginalise the people who dragged the Labour party down, suspend anyone guilty of antisemitism and let the Kerry-Anne Mendozas slink back to the SWP or wherever it was they came from.
The Tories have largely learned the lesson that you steer well clear of the Tommy Robinsons of this world. Labour needs to learn the same lesson with the hard left. Starmer gives every indication that he gets it.
Perhaps...or perhaps this idea that 80% of cases arisen from 20% of infected individuals is accurate.
Not arguing masks a good idea, but also plenty of studies of cases that show extended close contact, even with no masks and people didn't catch it e.g. even the original super spreader, I seemed to remember only half the group got it, despite staying in the same chalet with the guy for a week. And he was one of these "super spreaders".
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
It won't go unoticed over the time though. The problem is so many of the 2019 intake were on the far left and when you have sub 200 MPs the whacky ones like Whittome, Sultana, Gardiner and Clive Lewis are going to get their fair share of airtime. It's a problem for Starmer in terms of convicing the public that Labour are a party for the average voter. He's wisely ditched them from his shad cab at least.
Clive Lewis doesn't strike me as 'whacky'. Has his moments, but mostly perfectly reasonable.
In 'Ed Miliband is a dangerous Marxist' world, pretty much everyone can be called far left and whacky. Mysteriously the current bunch of state interventionists governing(sic) us seem to get a free pass.
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 completely insane view point.
The strongly libertarian viewpoint often seems that way. I have a lot of sympathy with libertarian arguments, but as a guiding philosophy for organising a society composed of less than perfect individuals, it kind of sucks.
That way leads to anarchy and yes, is an insane point of view
Are you against te Suffragette protests? Are you glad that Von Stauffenberg failed in his assasination attempt of Hitler? I think that had he suceeded, his actions would today be heralded as heroic.
Another small piece of evidence in favour of masks:
Just back from Morrisons. Very high mask usage with women in there. Almost all of them in fact. But not so the men. A really quite striking gender split. So yet another instance, to join so many others, of Viva La Femme!
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 completely insane view point.
Its entirely sane and its a view we've had for hundreds of years.
There is a noble history for hundreds of years of law breakers achieving progress. And this country isn't nor hasn't been an authoritarian dictatorship were the law must be obeyed. Nor should it be. I wouldn't support that.
Some things are more important than the law.
You've really gone off into the deep end to support your idiotic stance on Cummings. It's sad how one bad decision has led you down such an odd path that now you're advocating breaking the law if you feel like it. I feel like having the latest TV but I don't want to pay for it, should I go and rob John Lewis tomorrow?
You think I support people taking responsibility for their own decision making because of Cummings? Not because that has always been my philosophy?
I chose Jack Sparrow as my avatar last year because people kept using the term Libertarian Pirate Island as an insult and I said that sounded great to me. Was that because of Cummings?
Perhaps my enjoyment of Atlas Shrugged in the 90s was because of Cummings?
Another small piece of evidence in favour of masks:
Just back from Morrisons. Very high mask usage with women in there. Almost all of them in fact. But not so the men. A really quite striking gender split. So yet another instance, to join so many others, of Viva La Femme!
And of course women much less likely to suffer badly from this.
Perhaps so. But if they mean it (who knows ?), it's not a wholly insignificant threat.
We've found ourselves in a position where we are partially reliant on a totalitarian dictatorship so that they are in the position of being able to threaten us with withdrawing things from us as punishment.
It was a mistake ever to put ourselves in that position and we should extricate ourselves from it as soon as possible.
On topic, the Sun report is pretty sketchy so it is not clear exactly what is being asked for. The US authorities regularly ask for evidence from potential witnesses based in other jurisdictions. I have dealt with a number of these.
It does not sound as if this is an extradition request which would be made under the Extradition Treaty and, as far as I am aware, no charges have been brought against Andrew.
The key issues are to determine what is being asked for, in what capacity the person is being asked, what use can be made of the material provided. Nothing should ever be said or handed over other than in accordance with the law. There are also issues as to where the information is given ie at the US embassy in which case one is on US soil or in the U.K. This affects the legal rights which the person giving evidence has.
Andrew should, if he hasn’t already, get UK and US lawyers advising him.
The Home Office should strictly comply with the law and should avoid making public comment.
I suspect however there will be more heat than light generated on this topic by lots of people with absolutely no knowledge of or experience in dealing with requests for MLA.
Another small piece of evidence in favour of masks:
Just back from Morrisons. Very high mask usage with women in there. Almost all of them in fact. But not so the men. A really quite striking gender split. So yet another instance, to join so many others, of Viva La Femme!
And of course women much less likely to suffer badly from this.
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 completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
It`s just rational choice theory.
Robert is a libertarian not a conservative. That he supports the CP now is purely because that party is closest to libertarianism than the others.
Comments
On the whole our police have done a vastly superior job of reacting proportionately.
If there was a very legitimate cause in your eyes that made the price worth paying for you then you might choose to go ahead.
Society needs to ensure that people don't think the price is worth paying and that people aren't excluded enough to warrant them being willing to pay that price.
If that changes the polling will change too.
https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1269758561720156160?s=19.
Plus Hillary of course had big popular vote leads over Trump too in summer 2016
I think you're very much out of touch
https://twitter.com/FinchHaven/status/1188858033280970752
Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for.
They haven't ended the first.
Poor journalism again.
Also Iran.
Would you like to join me and @Alistair and @Stocky in the TrumpToast club?
We've been stuck on 3 for too long. Criteria for joining - supreme confidence that he loses in November and a strong hunch it will not even be close.
Personally I think Andy Pandy should be over in the US right now answering every question put to him but it is now time to stand up to the US bullying over extradition and say no more until they start to play fair.
So Cummings should've resigned/been fired then?
Do you think that is popular with voters? Really?
NY, for instance, has definitely ended its first wave.
(And it's hardly a pointless article - a week or so back many of the 'no need for lockdown' types were holding up Florida as an exemplar.)
Looks like disruptive protesting is a lot more effective in producing change than voting blue. Who'd have thought?
Although, as a Newcastle United fan, the world is black and white.
I don't want to jinx my Betfair book.
Not seeing it.
The tactics of the Met are novel and can why they came under critisicms. By avoiding any contentious moments or police brutality incidents they have probably won the PR battle. The public are now onside with the Police and the government so if there are further incidents I'd expect the rule of law to come down harder.
Actually, NY was decreasing fast, now past 3 weeks, stuck at 1000 new cases a day.
I don't think I every agreed with Jeremy, so that's a good start, eh.
We have law and democracy but they're not the be all and end all. The penalty for breaking the law isn't the death penalty or life in prison for minor infringements.
If people view breaking the law and paying the price to be a price worth paying for furthering their beliefs then that's their free choice. And its societies choice too to permit that and not to turn into an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed in all circumstances or else.
It's about time the public learned what these people really think, and what they would really do with power...
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I really really want to go visit the family in Spain in August as planned. But its nearly mid June and I'm not allowed out of England to visit my brother and his family in Scotland, so in what version of sanity should I be ok to fly (or drive in my case)1500 miles across Europe?
I have a lot of sympathy with libertarian arguments, but as a guiding philosophy for organising a society composed of less than perfect individuals, it kind of sucks.
Let's
spend it on the NHS insteadbuild @MarqueeMark's tidal lagoons instead!There is a noble history for hundreds of years of law breakers achieving progress. And this country isn't nor hasn't been an authoritarian dictatorship were the law must be obeyed. Nor should it be. I wouldn't support that.
Some things are more important than the law.
https://twitter.com/FollowMeltdowns/status/1269723134325858304?s=20
Isn't Andrew on record as saying he would be happy to help the American police with their enquiries? He should answer questions. I don't think that requires extradition though.
Answer: choose your denominator.
https://twitter.com/CosmicDanzo/status/1269729012408111105
But if they mean it (who knows ?), it's not a wholly insignificant threat.
The Eric Heffers and Dave Nellists of this world come and go and we just laugh at them.
And, if so, could they VM me privately please.
Thanks in advance.
The important response was the measured one from Starmer. Were Corbyn still in the driving seat we doubtless would have had some equivocal, rambling nonsense. He isn't thankfully.
I've just closed mine out for quite a decent profit.
But before you shout at me, here's the thinking. My USP has now become not so much Trump will lose - since I sense this dawning on people and about to become a clear consensus - but that it will NOT be close.
So, I'm waiting for the spreads and hoping my expectation of a probable Dem landslide at that point is still niche.
Then I sell his EC quote - 245? - for an eye-watering unit stake.
So we might realise our mistakes a bit earlier on in the process this time ?
oh wait
https://twitter.com/AbraarKaran/status/1269415464414973953
Laws have been broken throughout history. The Suffragettes got their vote through standing up and breaking the law. I'm happy to break the law if the law is in the wrong - I have never been a law and order obsessive.
As a fundamental act of principle I believe just laws should be followed and unjust laws should not. Would you do the wrong thing if the law compelled it, just because it was the law?
But yes, his stance is pretty crazy.
The Tories have largely learned the lesson that you steer well clear of the Tommy Robinsons of this world. Labour needs to learn the same lesson with the hard left. Starmer gives every indication that he gets it.
Not arguing masks a good idea, but also plenty of studies of cases that show extended close contact, even with no masks and people didn't catch it e.g. even the original super spreader, I seemed to remember only half the group got it, despite staying in the same chalet with the guy for a week. And he was one of these "super spreaders".
Are you glad that Von Stauffenberg failed in his assasination attempt of Hitler? I think that had he suceeded, his actions would today be heralded as heroic.
I chose Jack Sparrow as my avatar last year because people kept using the term Libertarian Pirate Island as an insult and I said that sounded great to me. Was that because of Cummings?
Perhaps my enjoyment of Atlas Shrugged in the 90s was because of Cummings?
It was a mistake ever to put ourselves in that position and we should extricate ourselves from it as soon as possible.
It does not sound as if this is an extradition request which would be made under the Extradition Treaty and, as far as I am aware, no charges have been brought against Andrew.
The key issues are to determine what is being asked for, in what capacity the person is being asked, what use can be made of the material provided. Nothing should ever be said or handed over other than in accordance with the law. There are also issues as to where the information is given ie at the US embassy in which case one is on US soil or in the U.K. This affects the legal rights which the person giving evidence has.
Andrew should, if he hasn’t already, get UK and US lawyers advising him.
The Home Office should strictly comply with the law and should avoid making public comment.
I suspect however there will be more heat than light generated on this topic by lots of people with absolutely no knowledge of or experience in dealing with requests for MLA.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1269939024204103682/photo/1
Robert is a libertarian not a conservative. That he supports the CP now is purely because that party is closest to libertarianism than the others.