When you look at the scenes in Brixton and on Bournemouth beach today, and you look at the government's position on lockdown, furlough. schooling and social distancing in general....
Well, the sheer utter leaden useless pantsedness of the Johnson government really does stick out a country mile.
In theory it is meant to have a sunset clause. It is not being presented as a practical way of dealing with social distancing because the problem is not caused by this. It is being presented as a way of dealing with the backlog by, dishonestly, claiming that this has been caused by Covid when that is untrue.
But I simply do not trust the government on this, any of them. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent.
We are already coming out of lockdown so there is no real reason why there cannot be socially distanced trials now.
To get rid of a backlog of 40,000 cases this change would need to go on for years not a few months which is why I don’t believe the temporary claim.
Re the numbers, the reason for 12 is to allow jurors to drop out and still permit a majority verdict if necessary. If you reduce the total you raise the possibility of having trials aborted because there are insufficient jurors even for a majority verdict. Currently you can have an 8-2 verdict.
So 7 is too low. You could reduce to 10 - temporarily. But this or even 7 does not increase capacity. For that courts need to be reopened etc. There are very real measures which can be taken to deal with the backlog but the government does not want to take them and is - quite dishonestly - pretending that these two false choices are the only ones.
Got you. Thanks.
To underline Cyclefree's points, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary measure' I believe.
When you look at the scenes in Brixton and on Bournemouth beach today, and you look at the government's position on lockdown, furlough. schooling and social distancing in general....
Well, the sheer utter leaden useless pantsedness of the Johnson government really does stick out a country mile.
Over the last weeks we have found ourselves agreeing again and again. Spot on.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You can't have it both ways. If taking the knee associates you with the far left then flying the English flag associates you with the EDL and far right.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Shameful that Starmer did not raise it at PMQ’s yesterday. If the former head of the CPS can’t see the importance of this change, what hope is there.
I'd be worried the former head of the CPS privately agrees with this change. 🙁
I seriously hope this is just a kite that will be abandoned. If this is forced through I will abandon all support of the Tories as I did while they were led by Theresa May. This is a dealbreaker for me.
Good for you!
Write to your MP about it. Copy in Robert Buckland and Keir Starmer. Hell, copy my article to them.
And don’t be deluded by the 7-jury proposal. That is not the expressed preference. It’s put in there as a feint. What the Lord Chancellor wants to do is take away the right to a jury trial altogether for a whole load of serious offences.
Is this (in theory) a proposal just for until we can drop social distancing?
And what do you think of 7 instead of 12? Are you wedded to 12?
The fewer the jurors the more chance of a miscarriage of justice. The natural consequence of this is that a majority verdict would need as few as 5 or 6 to return a guilty plea.
The whole concept is fundamentally wrong. We should not be messing with Jury trials just because the Government have been too incompetent to run the system properly. If things really are that bad then it is the Government that needs to be got rid of not the juries.
When you look at the scenes in Brixton and on Bournemouth beach today, and you look at the government's position on lockdown, furlough. schooling and social distancing in general....
Well, the sheer utter leaden useless pantsedness of the Johnson government really does stick out a country mile.
In politics, isn't it rather sensible to ensure your opponents' embarrassing idiots hang around like bad smells, while yours are eliminated as quickly as possible?
Looks charming. No doubt you'd have preferred the EU flag?
Looks like a blooming waste of money...
As has been pointed out, the cost of the paint job is fairly small. That is is effectively the appropriation of a military asset full-time for government travel is quite a bit more costly.
In theory it is meant to have a sunset clause. It is not being presented as a practical way of dealing with social distancing because the problem is not caused by this. It is being presented as a way of dealing with the backlog by, dishonestly, claiming that this has been caused by Covid when that is untrue.
But I simply do not trust the government on this, any of them. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent.
We are already coming out of lockdown so there is no real reason why there cannot be socially distanced trials now.
To get rid of a backlog of 40,000 cases this change would need to go on for years not a few months which is why I don’t believe the temporary claim.
Re the numbers, the reason for 12 is to allow jurors to drop out and still permit a majority verdict if necessary. If you reduce the total you raise the possibility of having trials aborted because there are insufficient jurors even for a majority verdict. Currently you can have an 8-2 verdict.
So 7 is too low. You could reduce to 10 - temporarily. But this or even 7 does not increase capacity. For that courts need to be reopened etc. There are very real measures which can be taken to deal with the backlog but the government does not want to take them and is - quite dishonestly - pretending that these two false choices are the only ones.
Got you. Thanks.
To underline Cyclefree's points, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary measure' I believe.
And yet here we are.
Or look at temporary measures introduced in 1922 in NI still there 50 years later.
That is a huge move from Starmer. Absolutely the right thing to do, of course, but not something he had to do. He had the cover and the poltical capital to look the other way, but he chose not to. The far-left inside Labour will be absolutely incandescent.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Shameful that Starmer did not raise it at PMQ’s yesterday. If the former head of the CPS can’t see the importance of this change, what hope is there.
I'd be worried the former head of the CPS privately agrees with this change. 🙁
I seriously hope this is just a kite that will be abandoned. If this is forced through I will abandon all support of the Tories as I did while they were led by Theresa May. This is a dealbreaker for me.
Good for you!
Write to your MP about it. Copy in Robert Buckland and Keir Starmer. Hell, copy my article to them.
And don’t be deluded by the 7-jury proposal. That is not the expressed preference. It’s put in there as a feint. What the Lord Chancellor wants to do is take away the right to a jury trial altogether for a whole load of serious offences.
Is this (in theory) a proposal just for until we can drop social distancing?
And what do you think of 7 instead of 12? Are you wedded to 12?
The fewer the jurors the more chance of a miscarriage of justice. The natural consequence of this is that a majority verdict would need as few as 5 or 6 to return a guilty plea.
The whole concept is fundamentally wrong. We should not be messing with Jury trials just because the Government have been too incompetent to run the system properly. If things really are that bad then it is the Government that needs to be got rid of not the juries.
Looks charming. No doubt you'd have preferred the EU flag?
Many will think there are slightly more pressing things to be sorting out right now. Typical Johnson though, symbolism without any practical substance. Surprised it didn't have a daft slogan down the side.
In politics, isn't it rather sensible to ensure your opponents' embarrassing idiots hang around like bad smells, while yours are eliminated as quickly as possible?
Starmer never called on Cummings to resign, although he said he would have sacked him.
Even today, we are still talking about Cummings.
He never called on Jenrick to resign over his home flipping.
Here, today, Jenrick is landing the government in a massive slurry pit.
Meanwhile, he had Rosie Duffield and now Rebecca Wrong Daily. Both gone in 24 hours.
The contrast is marked and not necessarily to the Tories' advantage.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
There is no difference between the far left and the far right. They are two cheeks of the same arse and I oppose them both equally.
You can't argue this point with me and at the same time the one you are arguing with @isam. If you're right to say to isam that the BLM anti-racist cause is a good one - which you are - it follows that you are wrong to disagree with my contention that there is no equivalence between BLM/antifa and the racist cum fascist far right. Which you duly are.
So to summarize. I'm right, isam is wrong, and you are both right AND wrong - I think because you are trying to fight on too many fronts at the same time. Like Hitler.
No there is both a far left and a far right and they are both scum.
BLM movement in general and Kaepernick's protest in specific are not far left though. Which is why I support the principles and would happily take a knee myself.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
Picaninny meant that Boris was satirising Blair's resort to an Imperial Progress because he was held in such contempt at home. I have no problem with that - pointing out that Blair was behaving like a latterday puffed up Colonel Blimp in plus fours and a pith helmet.
There's some other stuff in that piece that is more worrying, though, imo.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Shameful that Starmer did not raise it at PMQ’s yesterday. If the former head of the CPS can’t see the importance of this change, what hope is there.
I'd be worried the former head of the CPS privately agrees with this change. 🙁
I seriously hope this is just a kite that will be abandoned. If this is forced through I will abandon all support of the Tories as I did while they were led by Theresa May. This is a dealbreaker for me.
Good for you!
Write to your MP about it. Copy in Robert Buckland and Keir Starmer. Hell, copy my article to them.
And don’t be deluded by the 7-jury proposal. That is not the expressed preference. It’s put in there as a feint. What the Lord Chancellor wants to do is take away the right to a jury trial altogether for a whole load of serious offences.
Is this (in theory) a proposal just for until we can drop social distancing?
And what do you think of 7 instead of 12? Are you wedded to 12?
The fewer the jurors the more chance of a miscarriage of justice. The natural consequence of this is that a majority verdict would need as few as 5 or 6 to return a guilty plea.
As a point of law, that's not how majority verdicts work in the UK.
With a jury of 12, the judge can allow a majority verdict of 11-1 or 10-2. Nothing else is permitted so 7-5 for example, in either direction, is a hung jury and there will be a retrial (unless the prosecution drop it). If the jury is 11 (e.g. due to illness) the majority can only be 10-1, and if it is 10, it can only be 9-1.
In theory it is meant to have a sunset clause. It is not being presented as a practical way of dealing with social distancing because the problem is not caused by this. It is being presented as a way of dealing with the backlog by, dishonestly, claiming that this has been caused by Covid when that is untrue.
But I simply do not trust the government on this, any of them. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent.
We are already coming out of lockdown so there is no real reason why there cannot be socially distanced trials now.
To get rid of a backlog of 40,000 cases this change would need to go on for years not a few months which is why I don’t believe the temporary claim.
Re the numbers, the reason for 12 is to allow jurors to drop out and still permit a majority verdict if necessary. If you reduce the total you raise the possibility of having trials aborted because there are insufficient jurors even for a majority verdict. Currently you can have an 8-2 verdict.
So 7 is too low. You could reduce to 10 - temporarily. But this or even 7 does not increase capacity. For that courts need to be reopened etc. There are very real measures which can be taken to deal with the backlog but the government does not want to take them and is - quite dishonestly - pretending that these two false choices are the only ones.
Got you. Thanks.
To underline Cyclefree's points, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary measure' I believe.
And yet here we are.
I think we're saying scrapping juries is a bad thing though.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
There is no difference between the far left and the far right. They are two cheeks of the same arse and I oppose them both equally.
You can't argue this point with me and at the same time the one you are arguing with @isam. If you're right to say to isam that the BLM anti-racist cause is a good one - which you are - it follows that you are wrong to disagree with my contention that there is no equivalence between BLM/antifa and the racist cum fascist far right. Which you duly are.
So to summarize. I'm right, isam is wrong, and you are both right AND wrong - I think because you are trying to fight on too many fronts at the same time. Like Hitler.
No there is both a far left and a far right and they are both scum.
BLM movement in general and Kaepernick's protest in specific are not far left though. Which is why I support the principles and would happily take a knee myself.
Again I find myself agreeing with you, Philip. Time to go do some work.
What a tabloidy list. If the list is to be of causes, a major war should be in there.
But a better question would ask about effects, such as:
* food shortages * collapse of banking system / hyperinflation * long-term power blackouts
The question is about 'doomsday scenarios' - which banking collapse and food shortages* aren't really, unpleasant though they might be.
War is in there, or at least the doomsday version of it, as is mass power outage, in the major solar flare scenario.
The current pandemic isn't doomsday, either. But it might have been.
*The doomsday version of this is arguably captured by climate change.
If people are to be asked to think about big bad world-shaking stuff that might happen in the future, I'd prefer it if they were encouraged to think about effects they might experience in their own lives. That was my main point. I wasn't trying to pick intellectual holes in a survey that puts "nuclear bomb" on the same level as "zombie outbreak".
I doubt more than 10% of the population know that solar flares can cause power outages. But if large-scale outages do occur, solar flares are unlikely to be the cause.
That would be more surprising, and he might be wary of causing upset among Long-Bailey's supporters at this stage. After all, while what she did was silly and offensive, she didn't directly say anything anti-semitic.
But it sets the precedent that Labour is sensitive to charges of anti-semitism and will deal with them ruthlessly. That in itself sends a rather clear message on what to expect if the EHRC report is damning.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
Picaninny meant that Boris was satirising Blair's resort to an Imperial Progress because he was held in such contempt at home. I have no problem with that - pointing out that Blair was behaving like a latterday puffed up Colonel Blimp in plus fours and a pith helmet.
There's some other stuff in that piece that is more worrying, though, imo.
In the context of the rest of the piece, it just looked as though he was enjoying the opportunity to use the term, which is not one in acceptable usage today.
In theory it is meant to have a sunset clause. It is not being presented as a practical way of dealing with social distancing because the problem is not caused by this. It is being presented as a way of dealing with the backlog by, dishonestly, claiming that this has been caused by Covid when that is untrue.
But I simply do not trust the government on this, any of them. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent.
We are already coming out of lockdown so there is no real reason why there cannot be socially distanced trials now.
To get rid of a backlog of 40,000 cases this change would need to go on for years not a few months which is why I don’t believe the temporary claim.
Re the numbers, the reason for 12 is to allow jurors to drop out and still permit a majority verdict if necessary. If you reduce the total you raise the possibility of having trials aborted because there are insufficient jurors even for a majority verdict. Currently you can have an 8-2 verdict.
So 7 is too low. You could reduce to 10 - temporarily. But this or even 7 does not increase capacity. For that courts need to be reopened etc. There are very real measures which can be taken to deal with the backlog but the government does not want to take them and is - quite dishonestly - pretending that these two false choices are the only ones.
Got you. Thanks.
To underline Cyclefree's points, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary measure' I believe.
And yet here we are.
I think we're saying scrapping juries is a bad thing though.
What I am saying is we should not be fobbed off with the idea that scrapping juries is a 'temporary measure' because 'temporary measures' tend to become permanent.
It is therefore "tracking" approximately 2.25% of all encounters, and not very accurately (according to testing). There's also no way of knowing who has triggered it if you get asked to isolate. Good for privacy but not for track and trace.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
But you DO think it was wrong. Otherwise you would not make the point so doggedly.
If RLB had gone on to say that Maxine's reference to Israel was antisemitic, then I'd have said that the sacking is harsh.
RLB still has the whip, she's still on twitter. She's still an MP. Being in the cab or Shad cab is about what sort of Gov't you're in or aspire to be in, not much to do with cancel culture. It's appropriate she's not in the shadcab any more but it's a reach to make it go further. So SKS has this one right.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
Picaninny meant that Boris was satirising Blair's resort to an Imperial Progress because he was held in such contempt at home. I have no problem with that - pointing out that Blair was behaving like a latterday puffed up Colonel Blimp in plus fours and a pith helmet.
There's some other stuff in that piece that is more worrying, though, imo.
In the context of the rest of the piece, it just looked as though he was enjoying the opportunity to use the term, which is not one in acceptable usage today.
The article also wasn't written or published today.
This is just like the hysteria over Faulty Towers episode The Germans using offensive words when at the time they were mocking racists not being racists.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You can't have it both ways. If taking the knee associates you with the far left then flying the English flag associates you with the EDL and far right.
It has to be neither or both.
Well, yes. If any right of centre politician sought to pose with the England flag whilst the far right were rioting I think people would make that association
This is just like the furore over the cost of changing passports colour when in reality that change didn't cost anything it was just part of the specification used and the passports would have been required and the same money spent either way.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
That would be more surprising, and he might be wary of causing upset among Long-Bailey's supporters at this stage. After all, while what she did was silly and offensive, she didn't directly say anything anti-semitic.
But it sets the precedent that Labour is sensitive to charges of anti-semitism and will deal with them ruthlessly. That in itself sends a rather clear message on what to expect if the EHRC report is damning.
I think this is more about getting rid of a former rival rather than anything more significant.
He saw an opportunity to get rid of her and went for it - which is good in one way, but I am not sure he is that concerned about dealing with AS - this feels tactical rather than principled.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
But you DO think it was wrong. Otherwise you would not make the point so doggedly.
I do think it's wrong, yes. But that isn't the point
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
This could do for Starmer what sacking Emily Thornberry did for Ed Miliband
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I suspect she is just collateral damage. He wanted to sack someone so he could contrast himself with Boris, and also to show he isn't anti-Semitic like the previous leader.
This was just the first available opportunity, even if it was pretty thin.
Comments
Well, the sheer utter leaden useless pantsedness of the Johnson government really does stick out a country mile.
War is in there, or at least the doomsday version of it, as is mass power outage, in the major solar flare scenario.
The current pandemic isn't doomsday, either. But it might have been.
*The doomsday version of this is arguably captured by climate change.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kaepernick-wears-castro-t-shirt/
https://sports.yahoo.com/colin-kaepernick-making-choice-activism-nfl-172340525.html
And yet here we are.
A gentle wrinkle of the nostrils?
And smart.
The cynic in me wonders if her appointment was in the expectation that she might do something stupid enough to give him the opportunity.
It has to be neither or both.
If he wants to troll the Corbynistas Kendall would be the best bet.
On the other hand, Ian Mearns might be quite a clever appointment - a Corbynista who is knowledgeable about education.
The whole concept is fundamentally wrong. We should not be messing with Jury trials just because the Government have been too incompetent to run the system properly. If things really are that bad then it is the Government that needs to be got rid of not the juries.
Go on, Sir Keir, crush those far lefties!
Looking forward to the aftermath of the EHRC report now.
Many will think there are slightly more pressing things to be sorting out right now. Typical Johnson though, symbolism without any practical substance. Surprised it didn't have a daft slogan down the side.
Even today, we are still talking about Cummings.
He never called on Jenrick to resign over his home flipping.
Here, today, Jenrick is landing the government in a massive slurry pit.
Meanwhile, he had Rosie Duffield and now Rebecca Wrong Daily. Both gone in 24 hours.
The contrast is marked and not necessarily to the Tories' advantage.
Now to nail Buckland on trial by jury.
BLM movement in general and Kaepernick's protest in specific are not far left though. Which is why I support the principles and would happily take a knee myself.
There's some other stuff in that piece that is more worrying, though, imo.
Well, not until an election.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1276161383336378377
https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1276159731388776450?s=21
Wonder if @kinabalu will stop defending her or attacking me for calling her an anti-Semite now?
With a jury of 12, the judge can allow a majority verdict of 11-1 or 10-2. Nothing else is permitted so 7-5 for example, in either direction, is a hung jury and there will be a retrial (unless the prosecution drop it). If the jury is 11 (e.g. due to illness) the majority can only be 10-1, and if it is 10, it can only be 9-1.
https://youtu.be/fpRkX9Gv9FM
Time to go do some work.
I doubt more than 10% of the population know that solar flares can cause power outages. But if large-scale outages do occur, solar flares are unlikely to be the cause.
He gets all the political capital he needs and can put the negativity on the previous lot, he also has new Johnson attacks. Win win.
Whoever is advising him, good work
But it sets the precedent that Labour is sensitive to charges of anti-semitism and will deal with them ruthlessly. That in itself sends a rather clear message on what to expect if the EHRC report is damning.
Lol Keir is savage
12m Germans have downloaded it (out of 80m).
It is therefore "tracking" approximately 2.25% of all encounters, and not very accurately (according to testing). There's also no way of knowing who has triggered it if you get asked to isolate. Good for privacy but not for track and trace.
NHS is something the Tories lead on during the GE.
Then
Rebecca Long-Bailey.
Once you were
Wrong Daily.
Now you are
Just
Wrong.
- E.J. Starmer (17 1/2)
http://www.mattwhittingham.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/led-zeppelins-jet-the-starship1.jpg
It's appropriate she's not in the shadcab any more but it's a reach to make it go further. So SKS has this one right.
This is just like the hysteria over Faulty Towers episode The Germans using offensive words when at the time they were mocking racists not being racists.
This is just like the furore over the cost of changing passports colour when in reality that change didn't cost anything it was just part of the specification used and the passports would have been required and the same money spent either way.
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1276154998943080448?s=20
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1276160194435854336?s=20
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
He saw an opportunity to get rid of her and went for it - which is good in one way, but I am not sure he is that concerned about dealing with AS - this feels tactical rather than principled.
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1276164453285888002?s=20
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
1. A fact
2. Tin foil hat twaddle
????
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8459887/Starmer-SACKS-Rebecca-Long-Bailey-actress-praise-tweet.html
Or at least, she might seek. But I think she would find the answer less than Biblical.
This was just the first available opportunity, even if it was pretty thin.
Glad this moron isn't advising the leader, in another life he would be
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1276163193786818572
Ohio and Iowa might be in play if those are accurate. Indiana isn't going to be called at the top of the night either.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1276166427926564867