There are fears in China and Spain that second waves have begun. If one hits the US it would be preferable if the country had a proper president rather than Trump.
The first five words of that second sentence were superfluous.
If Trump gets a 2nd wave he will attempt to cancel the election.
The quickest ever constitutional amendment was the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which took 100 days to ratify.
The slowest amendment was the Twenty-Seventh amendment, at 203 years.
I am guessing the time to ratify an amendment to cancel the election would be a damn sight closer to the 27th than the 26th.
This is exactly what I saw in Trafalgar Square, groups of black men picking on lone and vulnerable white people; there could easily have been a death if the police hadn't intervened quickly
The Football Lads were loud and aggressive, and behaved disgracefully with the police, but they didn't do anything like this. As far I could see (obviously it might have happened, I wasn't ominpresent!)
Maybe this is the moment Liverpool finally decides not to be quite so left-wing. At the moment it's the only place in England where people from all backgrounds and ages support Labour.
Again, it isn't as if they don't confront their slavery past. There is a bloody massive museum all about it. Which IMO the right thing to do. You don't just erase history, you educate people about it.
Nobody wants to erase history.
Wanting to stop celebrating certain people isn't the same as erasing history.
We are often on opposite sides of debates, but your posting on statues and racism this week has been exceptional. Thank you.
What most anti-racists are asking for is perfectly reasonable yet the consensus opinion on here has been to consistently misrepresent it and conflate it with the extreme left wing groups that leech onto it. You have had the patience to consistently break that down and expose simple truths like the one above.
Anti racist groups are more racist than most
thats why we get
Employment quotas - implication black people cant get a job without help Lower entry standards for university - implication black people are thicker than others Don't raise issues such as parenting - implication black people should not be held responsble for their choices Black only short lists - implication we wont have black mp's because they arent as capable
People will possibly think I am trolling but they are wrong....tokenism whether of black, transgender, or female or any other minority group is patronising and enforces the prejudice against them.
This is exactly what I saw in Trafalgar Square, groups of black men picking on lone and vulnerable white people; there could easily have been a death if the police hadn't intervened quickly
The Football Lads were loud and aggressive, and behaved disgracefully with the police, but they didn't do anything like this. As far I could see (obviously it might have happened, I wasn't ominpresent!)
"Between 17 March and 15 April, around 25,000 people were discharged from hospitals into care homes, compared with around 35,000 people in the same period in 2019. Due to government policy at the time, not all patients were tested for COVID-19 before discharge, with priority given to patients with symptoms."
"Watchdog also confirms 25,000 hospital patients were sent to care homes before testing became routine"
"Health unions and senior MPs have been deeply concerned by the NAO findings, which also confirmed that 25,000 hospital patients were discharged to care homes at the height of the pandemic before testing became routine."
"around 25,000 patients were discharged into care homes without being tested for Coronavirus at the height of the pandemic. That is according to a report by the National Audit Office..."
All of them - the whole bloody lot - add a prejudicial assumption about the proportion of patients that were not tested, which is very different to the original.
A huge part of the problem. No thinking. No nuance. No care for precision.
This is exactly what I saw in Trafalgar Square, groups of black men picking on lone and vulnerable white people; there could easily have been a death if the police hadn't intervened quickly
The Football Lads were loud and aggressive, and behaved disgracefully with the police, but they didn't do anything like this. As far I could see (obviously it might have happened, I wasn't ominpresent!)
More than one thing can be true at once. There are 4 combinations possible (excluding neutrality)
An action can be both right and legal An action can be both wrong and illegal An action can be legal but wrong An action can be right but illegal
Ideally we always want to do the first and never the second.
The third and fourth can be grey areas. I'd rather do the fourth than the third. Others mileage may vary.
Were the authorities stupid enough to ban BLM protests then having the marches in defiance of the law would clearly fall into the last category - right but illegal. In that case you would be completely right to defend them.
The vandalism of monuments and assaults on police clearly lie in the second category - wrong and illegal. But still you try to defend them.
This is exactly what I saw in Trafalgar Square, groups of black men picking on lone and vulnerable white people; there could easily have been a death if the police hadn't intervened quickly
The Football Lads were loud and aggressive, and behaved disgracefully with the police, but they didn't do anything like this. As far I could see (obviously it might have happened, I wasn't ominpresent!)
Fuck. Pretty sure I was about five metres from that stramash
Is that definitely a knife in his hand? Grim
I don’t think so. If you blow up the picture with the “knife” circled it looks to me like the far leg of the guy in the background (the strip of gray at a 45 degree angle to the “knife” is his foreleg)
What, the part where I told you that if idiotic vandals on the left set a precedent for political violence then idiotic vandals on the right would emulate it?
I'd say that aged pretty well.
I see the standard 'individuals must take responsibility for their own actions' right wing mantra has been suspended for the duration of (literal) hostilities.
The left has spent the last couple of weeks telling the world that you can do whatever vandalism and rioting you like if your feelings are hurt and - surprise, surprise - it seems some people were listening.
While your fellow travellers on the right bravely attack policemen from behind. Tell me, Mr Blue, these fine fellows below share your political philosophy, exactly what are the people below demonstrating for? Are they for or against the police? I can’t tell.
I have no idea. Hopefully any crimes committed on this march will be harshly punished by the law, just as those committed by your fellow travellers should have been.
Unlike you, I don't attempt to minimize or excuse obvious criminal behaviour by protesters. If they break the law, then they should have the book thrown at them.
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
Actually Mike that’s bullshit
If you break the law you break the law. You are not “more right”. It’s binary.
The purpose comes into it.
No. The law is the law. If you don’t like it campaign to get it changed
Or pay the price for breaking it. If the country isn't an authoritarian dictatorship the penalty for breaking most laws isn't life in prison or banishment.
You are entirely missing the point of the discussion.
If two people break the same law they should be treated the same way.
It’s called equality before the law and it is an absolutely fundamental principle.
Mike was saying that if you are “anti-racist” you should be let off because you “are more in the right”
How did he say that?
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
I can acknowledge something as both right and illegal. I can also say the right thing done illegally should be punished because of equality under the law. Can you?
This is exactly what I saw in Trafalgar Square, groups of black men picking on lone and vulnerable white people; there could easily have been a death if the police hadn't intervened quickly
The Football Lads were loud and aggressive, and behaved disgracefully with the police, but they didn't do anything like this. As far I could see (obviously it might have happened, I wasn't ominpresent!)
More than one thing can be true at once. There are 4 combinations possible (excluding neutrality)
An action can be both right and legal An action can be both wrong and illegal An action can be legal but wrong An action can be right but illegal
Ideally we always want to do the first and never the second.
The third and fourth can be grey areas. I'd rather do the fourth than the third. Others mileage may vary.
Were the authorities stupid enough to ban BLM protests then having the marches in defiance of the law would clearly fall into the last category - right but illegal. In that case you would be completely right to defend them.
The vandalism of monuments and assaults on police clearly lie in the second category - wrong and illegal. But still you try to defend them.
I have never defended violence against the Police! I have said that is wrong without equivocation.
A guy urinating near a statue is the most "abhorrent" image he can think of?
Not the video of the lone white guy being nearly beaten to death by a gang, apparently because of his skin colour?
Do you know who Keith Palmer was?
Keith Palmer, GM (1968 or 1969 – 22 March 2017) was a British police officer who was posthumously awarded the George Medal, the second highest award for gallantry "not in the face of the enemy". Though unarmed, he stopped a knife-wielding terrorist from entering the Palace of Westminster during the 2017 Westminster attack; he died from wounds he received in this attack.[1][2] He had worked for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for 16 years, and had joined the MPS's Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Group in April 2016.
This is exactly what I saw in Trafalgar Square, groups of black men picking on lone and vulnerable white people; there could easily have been a death if the police hadn't intervened quickly
The Football Lads were loud and aggressive, and behaved disgracefully with the police, but they didn't do anything like this. As far I could see (obviously it might have happened, I wasn't ominpresent!)
Maybe this is the moment Liverpool finally decides not to be quite so left-wing. At the moment it's the only place in England where people from all backgrounds and ages support Labour.
Again, it isn't as if they don't confront their slavery past. There is a bloody massive museum all about it. Which IMO the right thing to do. You don't just erase history, you educate people about it.
Nobody wants to erase history.
Wanting to stop celebrating certain people isn't the same as erasing history.
We are often on opposite sides of debates, but your posting on statues and racism this week has been exceptional. Thank you.
What most anti-racists are asking for is perfectly reasonable yet the consensus opinion on here has been to consistently misrepresent it and conflate it with the extreme left wing groups that leech onto it. You have had the patience to consistently break that down and expose simple truths like the one above.
Anti racist groups are more racist than most
thats why we get
Employment quotas - implication black people cant get a job without help Lower entry standards for university - implication black people are thicker than others Don't raise issues such as parenting - implication black people should not be held responsble for their choices Black only short lists - implication we wont have black mp's because they arent as capable
People will possibly think I am trolling but they are wrong....tokenism whether of black, transgender, or female or any other minority group is patronising and enforces the prejudice against them.
Where institutionalised racism exists, proper opposition to it won't be either "racist" or "tokenist", and where opposition does show such features they should be criticised. But you write as if it doesn't exist because everyone by definition gets what they deserve.
A guy urinating near a statue is the most "abhorrent" image he can think of?
Not the video of the lone white guy being nearly beaten to death by a gang, apparently because of his skin colour?
Do you know who Keith Palmer was?
Keith Palmer, GM (1968 or 1969 – 22 March 2017) was a British police officer who was posthumously awarded the George Medal, the second highest award for gallantry "not in the face of the enemy". Though unarmed, he stopped a knife-wielding terrorist from entering the Palace of Westminster during the 2017 Westminster attack; he died from wounds he received in this attack.[1][2] He had worked for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for 16 years, and had joined the MPS's Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Group in April 2016.
Am I remembering correctly that Ellwood tried to give him CPR but failed to save him?
What, the part where I told you that if idiotic vandals on the left set a precedent for political violence then idiotic vandals on the right would emulate it?
I'd say that aged pretty well.
I see the standard 'individuals must take responsibility for their own actions' right wing mantra has been suspended for the duration of (literal) hostilities.
The left has spent the last couple of weeks telling the world that you can do whatever vandalism and rioting you like if your feelings are hurt and - surprise, surprise - it seems some people were listening.
While your fellow travellers on the right bravely attack policemen from behind. Tell me, Mr Blue, these fine fellows below share your political philosophy, exactly what are the people below demonstrating for? Are they for or against the police? I can’t tell.
I have no idea. Hopefully any crimes committed on this march will be harshly punished by the law, just as those committed by your fellow travellers should have been.
Unlike you, I don't attempt to minimize or excuse obvious criminal behaviour by protesters. If they break the law, then they should have the book thrown at them.
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
Actually Mike that’s bullshit
If you break the law you break the law. You are not “more right”. It’s binary.
The purpose comes into it.
No. The law is the law. If you don’t like it campaign to get it changed
Or pay the price for breaking it. If the country isn't an authoritarian dictatorship the penalty for breaking most laws isn't life in prison or banishment.
You are entirely missing the point of the discussion.
If two people break the same law they should be treated the same way.
It’s called equality before the law and it is an absolutely fundamental principle.
Mike was saying that if you are “anti-racist” you should be let off because you “are more in the right”
How did he say that?
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
I can acknowledge something as both right and illegal. I can also say the right thing done illegally should be punished because of equality under the law. Can you?
Yes
So what's your objection to what OGH said?
He seemed to me to just want acknowledgement that one was more right than the other. Shouldn't be hard to do IMHO.
A guy urinating near a statue is the most "abhorrent" image he can think of?
Not the video of the lone white guy being nearly beaten to death by a gang, apparently because of his skin colour?
Do you know who Keith Palmer was?
Keith Palmer, GM (1968 or 1969 – 22 March 2017) was a British police officer who was posthumously awarded the George Medal, the second highest award for gallantry "not in the face of the enemy". Though unarmed, he stopped a knife-wielding terrorist from entering the Palace of Westminster during the 2017 Westminster attack; he died from wounds he received in this attack.[1][2] He had worked for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for 16 years, and had joined the MPS's Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Group in April 2016.
Tobias Ellwood personally gave PC Palmer first aid as he was dying, so yes he probably finds that one particularly offensive. Not to mention the other video clip had not even happened at the time of Ellwoods posting so it seems a tough ask for him to have chosen that one.
Apparently if you call yourself 'Against Bad Things', a substantial minority of gullible people will assume that it must automatically be true, and that it is literally impossible for you to do wrong because, well, you're Against Bad Things.
It then follows logically that anyone against Against Bad Things must automatically be in favour of bad things themselves...
The ADL describe Antifa thus -
These violent counter-protesters are often part of “antifa” (short for “antifascist”), a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements. Their ideology is rooted in the assumption that the Nazi party would never have been able to come to power in Germany if people had more aggressively fought them in the streets in the 1920s and 30s. Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks...
...Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries. It is critical to understand how antifa fit within the larger counter-protest efforts. Doing so allows law enforcement to focus their resources on the minority who engage in violence without curtailing the civil rights of the majority of peaceful individuals who just want their voices to be heard...
... That said, it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose. Antifa reject racism but use unacceptable tactics. White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms. Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders... (emphasis all mine)
There is, as the ADL says, no moral equivalence between Antifa and the far right. I’m no Communist, but if it came to it in 1930s Berlin, it’s the Communists I’d root for. As the man you love to venerate said after the invasion of the Soviet Union “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
I'm afraid that I do consider communism and fascism to be morally equivalent, although one might ally with the former against the latter in a life-or-death situation, as the great man did. If we're going to get into a grim game of historical comparisons, it should be noted that communism has caused far more human suffering and death in the last hundred years by any empirical measure.
But we're talking about today. The ADL is a US-centric organization, as its reference to the US far right having 'murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone' indicates. Just as when it comes to the number of deaths caused by US vs. UK police, the UK far right is nowhere near as dangerous as the US far right - and God willing it will stay that way.
For the avoidance of doubt, as I've now said many times, I don't want either the far left or the far right rioting in the streets or indeed doing anything else at all. Every single crime any one of them commits should be fully investigated and punished according to due process of law, which I hope I have now made crystal clear.
I know that for you certain moral considerations override the strict letter of the law, but for me that's simply a bridge too far. I'll defend anyone's right to protest peacefully, but the moment they commit deliberate violence, they have lost the moral legitimacy to make what they themselves claim is a moral case.
It's also extremely dangerous, because once one side claims the right to commit violence for subjective reasons, then the other side will do so too. That's not an excuse or a justification - as I've said, they should all be punished equally for crimes - but it is a prediction, one that came true today and will keep coming true until both sides make a conscious decision to take violence off the table and protest peacefully.
This is exhausting. Our country has quite enough to deal with without self-inflicted strife on top of it all. I hope you can agree with that.
I don't know how the authorities de-escalate this.
This is why it was so utterly irresponsible for the usual liberal lefty morons to applaud the statue-toppling in Bristol and tolerate the Churchill-defacing in Whitehall, and generally cheer on BLM.
There was bound to be a patriotic hard right reaction, as the Lads could see that lawlessness works, and that in turn was bound to incite more violence, and now we have open racial strife on our streets,
Fantastic. Good job everybody
A simple solution would have been for the police to take the appropriate action last week to break up these BLM groups and associated thugs last week thus stopping public disorder and protecting property. Sort it out Boris!
I don't know how the authorities de-escalate this.
This is why it was so utterly irresponsible for the usual liberal lefty morons to applaud the statue-toppling in Bristol and tolerate the Churchill-defacing in Whitehall, and generally cheer on BLM.
There was bound to be a patriotic hard right reaction, as the Lads could see that lawlessness works, and that in turn was bound to incite more violence, and now we have open racial strife on our streets,
I don't know how the authorities de-escalate this.
This is why it was so utterly irresponsible for the usual liberal lefty morons to applaud the statue-toppling in Bristol and tolerate the Churchill-defacing in Whitehall, and generally cheer on BLM.
There was bound to be a patriotic hard right reaction, as the Lads could see that lawlessness works, and that in turn was bound to incite more violence, and now we have open racial strife on our streets,
Fantastic. Good job everybody
A simple solution would have been for the police to take the appropriate action last week to break up these BLM groups and associated thugs last week thus stopping public disorder and protecting property. Sort it out Boris!
Where is Johnson?
Do we think Thatcher would be skulking in Chequers over the weekend if this was going on on the streets of central London?
Once again, we see the part time, distracted, out of his depth PM.
What, the part where I told you that if idiotic vandals on the left set a precedent for political violence then idiotic vandals on the right would emulate it?
I'd say that aged pretty well.
I see the standard 'individuals must take responsibility for their own actions' right wing mantra has been suspended for the duration of (literal) hostilities.
The left has spent the last couple of weeks telling the world that you can do whatever vandalism and rioting you like if your feelings are hurt and - surprise, surprise - it seems some people were listening.
While your fellow travellers on the right bravely attack policemen from behind. Tell me, Mr Blue, these fine fellows below share your political philosophy, exactly what are the people below demonstrating for? Are they for or against the police? I can’t tell.
I have no idea. Hopefully any crimes committed on this march will be harshly punished by the law, just as those committed by your fellow travellers should have been.
Unlike you, I don't attempt to minimize or excuse obvious criminal behaviour by protesters. If they break the law, then they should have the book thrown at them.
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
Actually Mike that’s bullshit
If you break the law you break the law. You are not “more right”. It’s binary.
The purpose comes into it.
No. The law is the law. If you don’t like it campaign to get it changed
Or pay the price for breaking it. If the country isn't an authoritarian dictatorship the penalty for breaking most laws isn't life in prison or banishment.
You are entirely missing the point of the discussion.
If two people break the same law they should be treated the same way.
It’s called equality before the law and it is an absolutely fundamental principle.
Mike was saying that if you are “anti-racist” you should be let off because you “are more in the right”
How did he say that?
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
I can acknowledge something as both right and illegal. I can also say the right thing done illegally should be punished because of equality under the law. Can you?
Yes
So what's your objection to what OGH said?
He seemed to me to just want acknowledgement that one was more right than the other. Shouldn't be hard to do IMHO.
Look, you can't even do cause and effect. People pointed out what the Bristol incident would lead to, and it has now led to it. You have never been in a fight, never witnessed a riot, and you sit blethering away with your fifth form stabs at moral philosophy while people get seriously injured. I don't expect you to have the maturity or humility to apologise, but if you would just shut up that would help.
Apparently Channel 4 showed the 1966 World Cup Final recently and it is still available to stream (but doesn't seem available to download) via All 4.
A friend has asked me for technical advice. She'd like to show this on Father's Day at a Care Home she works at. It will be much appreciated by the men there I think and she's trying to make it as special a Father's Day as she can considering visitors still aren't permitted. The TV they have isn't a smart TV and there's no WiFi signal at that part of the Home. Normally when they play videos that have been downloaded it's via putting a video onto a USB stick then plugging that USB stick into the TV.
Is there any way to make this work? If anyone has any ideas to help I'd much appreciate it if anyone could please message me with ideas that could work as I'm stumped.
Apologies if this is an inappropriate question to put here but there's many smart people here and I'm hoping someone has a solution I haven't thought through.
A laptop and an appropriate connector to display the laptop screen on the TV?
A Laptop would work for streaming but there's no WiFi connection and no method of downloading that I can see from the All4 website. That's the issue. Need an offline solution.
Livestream it at home and record it with your phone 😐
Can you get a 4G signal? Buy or borrow one of these, connect to smart tv or via a laptop or an iPad/Tablet, could be the solution
Anyone that "supports" Black Lives Matter UK after seeing these videos needs a psychologist. It is a dangerous movement that is fomenting racial strife, the likes of which we have not seen before in our capital city.
This is bad bad bad
Anybody that "supports" the Democratic Football Lads Alliance, Britain First or any other EDL/BNP offshoot needs to see a psychologist. For many years they have fomented racial strife under the guise of patriotism/nationalism. They seem to find it impossible to attract women (in both senses) or non-white people to their cause or their protests. They are bad, bad, bad.
Incidentally, in my town today around 10,000 BLM supporters marched. No trouble at all, ignored some "patriots" defending a memorial. They only want a better society actually, not the overthrow of capitalism or the desecration of Churchill.
Don't be misled by a very small minority of SWP-type idiots in London, please.
I don't know how the authorities de-escalate this.
This is why it was so utterly irresponsible for the usual liberal lefty morons to applaud the statue-toppling in Bristol and tolerate the Churchill-defacing in Whitehall, and generally cheer on BLM.
There was bound to be a patriotic hard right reaction, as the Lads could see that lawlessness works, and that in turn was bound to incite more violence, and now we have open racial strife on our streets,
Fantastic. Good job everybody
A simple solution would have been for the police to take the appropriate action last week to break up these BLM groups and associated thugs last week thus stopping public disorder and protecting property. Sort it out Boris!
Where is Johnson?
Do we think Thatcher would be skulking in Chequers over the weekend if this was going on on the streets of central London?
Once again, we see the part time, distracted, out of his depth PM.
What can Johnson do?
Keeping his head down will cause less aggrivation than making some controversial speech.
Apparently if you call yourself 'Against Bad Things', a substantial minority of gullible people will assume that it must automatically be true, and that it is literally impossible for you to do wrong because, well, you're Against Bad Things.
It then follows logically that anyone against Against Bad Things must automatically be in favour of bad things themselves...
The ADL describe Antifa thus -
These violent counter-protesters are often part of “antifa” (short for “antifascist”), a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements. Their ideology is rooted in the assumption that the Nazi party would never have been able to come to power in Germany if people had more aggressively fought them in the streets in the 1920s and 30s. Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks...
...Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries. It is critical to understand how antifa fit within the larger counter-protest efforts. Doing so allows law enforcement to focus their resources on the minority who engage in violence without curtailing the civil rights of the majority of peaceful individuals who just want their voices to be heard...
... That said, it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose. Antifa reject racism but use unacceptable tactics. White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms. Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders... (emphasis all mine)
There is, as the ADL says, no moral equivalence between Antifa and the far right. I’m no Communist, but if it came to it in 1930s Berlin, it’s the Communists I’d root for. As the man you love to venerate said after the invasion of the Soviet Union “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
I think you've misunderstood the great man. I don't believe he was a fan of the Soviet Union nor did he think of them as true friends. It was an alliance of convenience, my enemies enemy being my friend - even if temporarily.
If the shoe had been on the other foot and we'd been at war with the USSR and Hitler had joined war against the USSR then it would have make sense to make a (temporary) alliance of convenience with Hitler.
Stalin was every bit as evil as Hitler. The moment the war was over Churchill knew that the USSR was our next enemy.
2 more retirements announced this week ahead of 2021 Scottish Parliament election: David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands regional list) and Angus MacDonald (SNP, Falkirk East)
Overall, 16 MSPs have confirmed so far that they won't stand again next year:
SNP Bruce Crawford (born in 1955): MSP since 1999 Mike Russell (1953), MSP from 1999 to 2003 and then since 2007 Stewart Stevenson (1946), MSP since 2001 Aileen Campbell (1980), MSP since 2007 Richard Lyle (1950), MSP since 2011 James Dornan (1953), MSP since 2011 Angus MacDonald (1963). MSP since 2011 Gail Ross (1977), MSP since 2016
ex MSP Mark McDonald (1980), MSP since 2011
Conservatives Ruth Davidson (1978), MSP since 2011 Margaret Mitchell (1952), MSP since 2003
Labour Elaine Smith (1963) MSP since 1999 David Stewart (1956), MSP since 2007 (MP between 1997-2005) Mary Fee (1954), MSP since 2011 Neil Findlay (1969), MSP since 2011
Greens John Finnie (1956), MSP since 2011 (first election as SNP)
Pensionable age for MSPs is 65. However, they can access to pensions at 55 with a reduction in the amount received (4% for each year before 65). Retirement pension of 1/50 of final salary for each year of service. Current annual salary is 64,470.
THanks for that - some interesting stuff, and nice to see we're not all worried about statues.
Anyone that "supports" Black Lives Matter UK after seeing these videos needs a psychologist. It is a dangerous movement that is fomenting racial strife, the likes of which we have not seen before in our capital city.
This is bad bad bad
Anybody that "supports" the Democratic Football Lads Alliance, Britain First or any other EDL/BNP offshoot needs to see a psychologist. For many years they have fomented racial strife under the guise of patriotism/nationalism. They seem to find it impossible to attract women (in both senses) or non-white people to their cause or their protests. They are bad, bad, bad.
Incidentally, in my town today around 10,000 BLM supporters marched. No trouble at all, ignored some "patriots" defending a memorial. They only want a better society actually, not the overthrow of capitalism or the desecration of Churchill.
Don't be misled by a very small minority of SWP-type idiots in London, please.
A guy urinating near a statue is the most "abhorrent" image he can think of?
Not the video of the lone white guy being nearly beaten to death by a gang, apparently because of his skin colour?
He didn’t write “the most” but “one of the most”.
Keith Palmer was the policeman who was stabbed by a terrorist and Tobias Elwood, heroically, tried to give him CPR to save his life as he lay dying. I can well understand why he feels that what this man is doing is abhorrent.
What, the part where I told you that if idiotic vandals on the left set a precedent for political violence then idiotic vandals on the right would emulate it?
I'd say that aged pretty well.
I see the standard 'individuals must take responsibility for their own actions' right wing mantra has been suspended for the duration of (literal) hostilities.
The left has spent the last couple of weeks telling the world that you can do whatever vandalism and rioting you like if your feelings are hurt and - surprise, surprise - it seems some people were listening.
While your fellow travellers on the right bravely attack policemen from behind. Tell me, Mr Blue, these fine fellows below share your political philosophy, exactly what are the people below demonstrating for? Are they for or against the police? I can’t tell.
I have no idea. Hopefully any crimes committed on this march will be harshly punished by the law, just as those committed by your fellow travellers should have been.
Unlike you, I don't attempt to minimize or excuse obvious criminal behaviour by protesters. If they break the law, then they should have the book thrown at them.
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
Actually Mike that’s bullshit
If you break the law you break the law. You are not “more right”. It’s binary.
The purpose comes into it.
No. The law is the law. If you don’t like it campaign to get it changed
Or pay the price for breaking it. If the country isn't an authoritarian dictatorship the penalty for breaking most laws isn't life in prison or banishment.
You are entirely missing the point of the discussion.
If two people break the same law they should be treated the same way.
It’s called equality before the law and it is an absolutely fundamental principle.
Mike was saying that if you are “anti-racist” you should be let off because you “are more in the right”
How did he say that?
The difference is that those opposed to racism have more right on their side than this lot - and that's something you never seem to acknowledge.
I can acknowledge something as both right and illegal. I can also say the right thing done illegally should be punished because of equality under the law. Can you?
Yes
So what's your objection to what OGH said?
He seemed to me to just want acknowledgement that one was more right than the other. Shouldn't be hard to do IMHO.
Look, you can't even do cause and effect. People pointed out what the Bristol incident would lead to, and it has now led to it. You have never been in a fight, never witnessed a riot, and you sit blethering away with your fifth form stabs at moral philosophy while people get seriously injured. I don't expect you to have the maturity or humility to apologise, but if you would just shut up that would help.
You don't know me.
Nobody got injured in the pulling down of Colston.
Thanks. So it’s about the same proportion as in Cardiff at the moment.
However, I wonder if there will be many left in Wales after next year. Dafydd Elis Thomas will not be standing again, I presume Jane Hutt won’t be either, and Kirsty Williams faces a real fight to hold her seat.
Carwyn Jones and David Melding are also stepping down.
Hutt went through the reselection process later last year. However, yes, it is a good candidate for retirement. Unless she is forced to be the candidate forever if they consider her the best bet to hold the seat. Ann Jones (Vale of Clwyd) is another potential bet for retirement. Both Hutt and Jones are also in 2 seats that will be challenged, I presume.
Labour may remain with Lynne Neagle as the only left from 1999. Even if some may have not noticed her in those 20 years.
Death rate in England 3.5x higher in last week than Scot. Scottish Government decision to take a cautious approach for last month has clearly now been vindicated.
Surely completely the reverse Malcolm. What it shows is that contrary to Nicola's claims the R rate in Scotland was much lower than in England and we should have been opening up much faster. These figures make the Scottish government's position on schools and shops look even more absurd than it will on Monday.
David , pointless opening schools now , holidays are in 2 weeks. They should be thinking how to get economy going , hear lots of people getting told jobs are gone. Neighbour volunteered to go , his lot were doing 350 and younger fellow other side , GE are looking at 400 at airport. Surely be a lot not going back to work.
Her excessive caution arising from a bureaucratic mindset is going to cost Scotland very dear.
And she expects England to pay.
you arse, Scotland pays it's own way and subsidises England. Typical grovelling spineless lickspittle wannabe Englander
Comments
The slowest amendment was the Twenty-Seventh amendment, at 203 years.
I am guessing the time to ratify an amendment to cancel the election would be a damn sight closer to the 27th than the 26th.
thats why we get
Employment quotas - implication black people cant get a job without help
Lower entry standards for university - implication black people are thicker than others
Don't raise issues such as parenting - implication black people should not be held responsble for their choices
Black only short lists - implication we wont have black mp's because they arent as capable
People will possibly think I am trolling but they are wrong....tokenism whether of black, transgender, or female or any other minority group is patronising and enforces the prejudice against them.
An action can be both right and legal
An action can be both wrong and illegal
An action can be legal but wrong
An action can be right but illegal
Ideally we always want to do the first and never the second.
The third and fourth can be grey areas. I'd rather do the fourth than the third. Others mileage may vary.
The vandalism of monuments and assaults on police clearly lie in the second category - wrong and illegal. But still you try to defend them.
https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar
Keith Palmer, GM (1968 or 1969 – 22 March 2017) was a British police officer who was posthumously awarded the George Medal, the second highest award for gallantry "not in the face of the enemy". Though unarmed, he stopped a knife-wielding terrorist from entering the Palace of Westminster during the 2017 Westminster attack; he died from wounds he received in this attack.[1][2] He had worked for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for 16 years, and had joined the MPS's Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Group in April 2016.
https://twitter.com/MarcStevenPhoto/status/1271859273665056771?s=19
He seemed to me to just want acknowledgement that one was more right than the other. Shouldn't be hard to do IMHO.
But we're talking about today. The ADL is a US-centric organization, as its reference to the US far right having 'murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone' indicates. Just as when it comes to the number of deaths caused by US vs. UK police, the UK far right is nowhere near as dangerous as the US far right - and God willing it will stay that way.
For the avoidance of doubt, as I've now said many times, I don't want either the far left or the far right rioting in the streets or indeed doing anything else at all. Every single crime any one of them commits should be fully investigated and punished according to due process of law, which I hope I have now made crystal clear.
I know that for you certain moral considerations override the strict letter of the law, but for me that's simply a bridge too far. I'll defend anyone's right to protest peacefully, but the moment they commit deliberate violence, they have lost the moral legitimacy to make what they themselves claim is a moral case.
It's also extremely dangerous, because once one side claims the right to commit violence for subjective reasons, then the other side will do so too. That's not an excuse or a justification - as I've said, they should all be punished equally for crimes - but it is a prediction, one that came true today and will keep coming true until both sides make a conscious decision to take violence off the table and protest peacefully.
This is exhausting. Our country has quite enough to deal with without self-inflicted strife on top of it all. I hope you can agree with that.
Do we think Thatcher would be skulking in Chequers over the weekend if this was going on on the streets of central London?
Once again, we see the part time, distracted, out of his depth PM.
The devil finds work for idle hands.
https://tinyurl.com/ycgbq7f9
Incidentally, in my town today around 10,000 BLM supporters marched. No trouble at all, ignored some "patriots" defending a memorial. They only want a better society actually, not the overthrow of capitalism or the desecration of Churchill.
Don't be misled by a very small minority of SWP-type idiots in London, please.
Keeping his head down will cause less aggrivation than making some controversial speech.
this thread has been placed into lockdown.
It's both very funny, and quite appropriate for this difficult time.
If the shoe had been on the other foot and we'd been at war with the USSR and Hitler had joined war against the USSR then it would have make sense to make a (temporary) alliance of convenience with Hitler.
Stalin was every bit as evil as Hitler. The moment the war was over Churchill knew that the USSR was our next enemy.
They should always be opposed.
Keith Palmer was the policeman who was stabbed by a terrorist and Tobias Elwood, heroically, tried to give him CPR to save his life as he lay dying. I can well understand why he feels that what this man is doing is abhorrent.
Nobody got injured in the pulling down of Colston.
Hutt went through the reselection process later last year. However, yes, it is a good candidate for retirement. Unless she is forced to be the candidate forever if they consider her the best bet to hold the seat.
Ann Jones (Vale of Clwyd) is another potential bet for retirement. Both Hutt and Jones are also in 2 seats that will be challenged, I presume.
Labour may remain with Lynne Neagle as the only left from 1999. Even if some may have not noticed her in those 20 years.