So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Because Parliament is for day to day government No one benefits from a permanent state of constitutional upheaval
You may think nobody benefits from it perhaps but democracy matters. If people don't want a state of upheaval then they shouldn't vote for a permanent state of constitutional upheaval. If the people have voted for upheaval then they should get it. If they haven't they shouldn't. What's wrong with that concept?
Remind me please, which party went into the last election on a platform of constitutional unheaval?
Isn’t there some saying about the fanaticism of the convert?
Hardly value added commentary in any event
I’m increasingly feeling sorry for what the USA are about to have inflicted on them - four months of the most divisive, petty and negative politics that’s ever been seen, with groups of people prepared to spend billions but with nothing positive to say to the electorate.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
It’s a horrible situation for the police, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
They only ever have a brief description to go from, so they get reports almost every night of “Two black men in a silver BMW, dealing drugs in Brixton”
There’s always information missing from these stories, and it’s definitely easier to accuse the police of racism on your large platform than it is to admit you might have being doing something that drew their attention.
Accusations of racism, or more accurately the fear of them, are contributing factors towards certain areas of London having a big problem with gang violence.
Well if accusations of racism are a problem, perhaps the police might kindly stop being so blatantly racist? Stuff like saying they can smell cannabis from someones car is just nonsense.
If he is being uncooperative it gives them probable cause.
Eh? They stopped a car they were following because they said they smelled cannabis in it - the drivers co-operation or not happened after the decision to stop the car was taken.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Because Parliament is for day to day government No one benefits from a permanent state of constitutional upheaval
You may think nobody benefits from it perhaps but democracy matters. If people don't want a state of upheaval then they shouldn't vote for a permanent state of constitutional upheaval. If the people have voted for upheaval then they should get it. If they haven't they shouldn't. What's wrong with that concept?
Remind me please, which party went into the last election on a platform of constitutional unheaval?
At the last Westminster one pretty much all of the major (and many minor) parties over Brexit - either upheaval by continuing with it, upheaval over withdrawing Article 50 or upheaval over future referenda.
At the last and probably next Holyrood election then the SNP.
But that's democracy for you. People have the right to vote for upheaval - and if they lose that we cease to be a democracy.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Because Parliament is for day to day government
No one benefits from a permanent state of constitutional upheaval
You may think nobody benefits from it perhaps but democracy matters. If people don't want a state of upheaval then they shouldn't vote for a permanent state of constitutional upheaval.
If the people have voted for upheaval then they should get it. If they haven't they shouldn't. What's wrong with that concept?
Because constitutional change is not the same as ordinary business of government.
You refer to the people every so often. That’s not every 5 years.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Because Parliament is for day to day government
No one benefits from a permanent state of constitutional upheaval
You may think nobody benefits from it perhaps but democracy matters. If people don't want a state of upheaval then they shouldn't vote for a permanent state of constitutional upheaval.
If the people have voted for upheaval then they should get it. If they haven't they shouldn't. What's wrong with that concept?
Because constitutional change is not the same as ordinary business of government.
You refer to the people every so often. That’s not every 5 years.
In a Parliamentary democracy constitutional change is the same as ordinary business of government. Every Parliament has the right to change our constitution.
If you wish to change that then go for a codified and hard to change constitution but that is categorically not the British constitution.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
That’s just a fact, not a principle
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
That’s just a fact, not a principle
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
It is both a fact and a principle.
A referral to the source is called a referendum. If the people elect politicians pledging that they can get it.
If the public had elected to Westminster a Labour government pledging a second EU referendum in 2019 then we'd have had a second referendum despite it being just a couple of years after the first one.
If the public don't want that then they shouldn't vote for it.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
That’s just a fact, not a principle
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
It is both a fact and a principle.
A referral to the source is called a referendum. If the people elect politicians pledging that they can get it.
If the public had elected to Westminster a Labour government pledging a second EU referendum in 2019 then we'd have had a second referendum despite it being just a couple of years after the first one.
If the public don't want that then they shouldn't vote for it.
Different rules apply to constitutional change
How is what you are saying different from asserting that the 2017 parliament had the authority to set aside the result of the Brexit referendum?
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
Where, outside the UK was that?
On the M6
You haven't read your highway code lately. Blue for emergency services, green for medical staff, amber as a warning of hazard.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
That’s just a fact, not a principle
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
It is both a fact and a principle.
A referral to the source is called a referendum. If the people elect politicians pledging that they can get it.
If the public had elected to Westminster a Labour government pledging a second EU referendum in 2019 then we'd have had a second referendum despite it being just a couple of years after the first one.
If the public don't want that then they shouldn't vote for it.
Indeed, and we currently have a government elected on manifesto commitments both to implement the result of the last referendum, and not holding any more for the duration of this Parliament.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
That’s just a fact, not a principle
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
It is both a fact and a principle.
A referral to the source is called a referendum. If the people elect politicians pledging that they can get it.
If the public had elected to Westminster a Labour government pledging a second EU referendum in 2019 then we'd have had a second referendum despite it being just a couple of years after the first one.
If the public don't want that then they shouldn't vote for it.
Different rules apply to constitutional change
How is what you are saying different from asserting that the 2017 parliament had the authority to set aside the result of the Brexit referendum?
The same rules apply to constitutional change in our system.
There is no difference. No Parliament can bind its successors.
The 2017 or 2019 Parliaments had the authority to set aside the 2016 referenda and seek a new one. So too there is no principled difference to the 2021 Holyrood Parliament seeking to set aside the result of the SindyRef and seek a new referenda. The two principles are identical.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, C wolaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
If you handed over cash, you've been done!
No there was someone threatening to jump off a bridge. They stopped the entire traffic of the M6 in both directions - and I was quite near the front of the queue when it happened I could see both the Police switch on their red lights and I could see the person sat dangling off the overhead bridge. We were trapped on the M6 for nearly two hours waiting for the Police to clear the person threatening to jump.
The whole time we were stopped the Police had their red lights on.
It can be either and I have been nicked A LOT. My track record on going full Grand Theft Auto and evading pursuit is good though: 3 escapes out of 3 attempts.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
If you handed over cash, you've been done!
It seems to be blue at the front and red behind?
Not according to the highway code. And as your correspondence with Thames Valley implied it took them a while to understand their own rules. I will concede defeat as I too have seen "stop" on motorway patrol cars in red in the event of a rolling roadblock.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, C wolaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
If you handed over cash, you've been done!
No there was someone threatening to jump off a bridge. They stopped the entire traffic of the M6 in both directions - and I was quite near the front of the queue when it happened I could see both the Police switch on their red lights and I could see the person sat dangling off the overhead bridge. We were trapped on the M6 for nearly two hours waiting for the Police to clear the person threatening to jump.
The whole time we were stopped the Police had their red lights on.
That's confirming danger! I give up on you all. Read the Highway Code. I wish I'd never started!
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, Colaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
Where, outside the UK was that?
On the M6
You haven't read your highway code lately. Blue for emergency services, green for medical staff, amber as a warning of hazard.
Does re-reading the highway code change the fact that the Police used it to stop the traffic?
I doubt the traffic would have stopped if they'd simply had their blue lights on. They used red to indicate stop. If you don't think they should have done that argue with the Police not me.
It can be either and I have been nicked A LOT. My track record on going full Grand Theft Auto and evading pursuit is good though: 3 escapes out of 3 attempts.
Blues and twos! The red was the colour of the copper's eyes after he nicked you!
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the story this Spectator item relates to got picked up on PB a day or two ago. If correct, nice example of how the fake news round is working.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, C wolaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
If you handed over cash, you've been done!
No there was someone threatening to jump off a bridge. They stopped the entire traffic of the M6 in both directions - and I was quite near the front of the queue when it happened I could see both the Police switch on their red lights and I could see the person sat dangling off the overhead bridge. We were trapped on the M6 for nearly two hours waiting for the Police to clear the person threatening to jump.
The whole time we were stopped the Police had their red lights on.
That's confirming danger! I give up on you all. Read the Highway Code. I wish I'd never started!
They stopped the traffic by switching their red lights on. As I said it happened. I was near the front of the traffic, I was overtaken by the Police vehicle which had blue lights on to get to the front of our section of traffic then switched red lights on. If I'd been about 3 cars further forward I wouldn't have been stopped and I witnessed it all.
I don't care what the Highway Code says about it - they used red to get the traffic to stop. If they shouldn't have done that argue with the Police - they did do it though.
Am I the only one here who really can’t bring themselves to bet on something where the outcome is entirely in the gift of one man, and he has literally millions of people to choose from?
Am I the only one here who really can’t bring themselves to bet on something where the outcome is entirely in the gift of one man, and he has literally millions of people to choose from?
Sounds like a good market to be the layer.....speaking of which, why isnt there a Republican VP nomination market on BF? Is Pence really such a banker that there would be no interest. Id be happy to lay 1.1x type prices.
Edit actually a bit more as he could end up the P nominee, not the VP - so you have two ways to win, Trump chooses someone else or Trump pulls out.
Am I the only one here who really can’t bring themselves to bet on something where the outcome is entirely in the gift of one man, and he has literally millions of people to choose from?
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
That was the one where the jury acquitted the officer of manslaughter. What did the police lie about?
As a general point, no person or organisation should ever be considered above suspicion.
This discussion is predicated on the problem of differing standards of proof. Alistair is using the ordinary standard, in which it is possible to argue that it is obvious to everyone that the Tomlinson case involved dirty work and jiggery pokery by at least one policeman. As the CPS maybe thought at the time.
tlg86 is relying on the idea that acquittal = innocence. It doesn't. In a criminal case (which this was) it is consistent with being probably guilty but just maybe possibly not.
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
That was the one where the jury acquitted the officer of manslaughter. What did the police lie about?
As a general point, no person or organisation should ever be considered above suspicion.
This discussion is predicated on the problem of differing standards of proof. Alistair is using the ordinary standard, in which it is obvious to everyone that the Tomlinson case involved dirty work and jiggery pokery by at least one policeman.
tlg86 is relying on the idea that acquittal = innocence. It doesn't. In a criminal case (which this was) it is consistent with being probably guilty but just maybe possibly not.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Because Parliament is for day to day government No one benefits from a permanent state of constitutional upheaval
You may think nobody benefits from it perhaps but democracy matters. If people don't want a state of upheaval then they shouldn't vote for a permanent state of constitutional upheaval. If the people have voted for upheaval then they should get it. If they haven't they shouldn't. What's wrong with that concept?
Remind me please, which party went into the last election on a platform of constitutional unheaval?
At the last Westminster one pretty much all of the major (and many minor) parties over Brexit - either upheaval by continuing with it, upheaval over withdrawing Article 50 or upheaval over future referenda.
At the last and probably next Holyrood election then the SNP.
But that's democracy for you. People have the right to vote for upheaval - and if they lose that we cease to be a democracy.
Oh, I yjought the Conservatives´plan for Brexit was an orderly withdrawal, not chaotic unheaval. Was that yet another Conservative lie from he Johnson gang?
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
That was the one where the jury acquitted the officer of manslaughter. What did the police lie about?
As a general point, no person or organisation should ever be considered above suspicion.
This discussion is predicated on the problem of differing standards of proof. Alistair is using the ordinary standard, in which it is possible to argue that it is obvious to everyone that the Tomlinson case involved dirty work and jiggery pokery by at least one policeman. As the CPS maybe thought at the time.
tlg86 is relying on the idea that acquittal = innocence. It doesn't. In a criminal case (which this was) it is consistent with being probably guilty but just maybe possibly not.
My recollection about the Tomlinson case was an argument about two autopsies that gave different conclusions (very Silent Witness), and rather like Hillsborough, an inquest jury said unlawful killing, but when a jury were asked to decide on a criminal charge against an individual, they said not guilty.
I don't know if there have been studies on this, but I'm not aware of claims that juries are more lenient on coppers. I can certainly think of a case where a judge was very lenient on a lawyer.
But I was just interested if there was something the police said that later turned out to be untrue. Wasn't the Tomlinson incident caught on camera? I can't remember if that came out after the story broke.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure a white couple with an infant child in the car would not have been handcuffed and subjected to a 45 minute search.
In the original incident, in Northumberland Park, north London, at 11am on 23 May, C wolaço said he was stopped after being “aggressively tailgated” by the Metropolitan police, with officers then running to his car and banging on his window. They later said they had been able to smell cannabis from his car.
As he queried why he was being stopped, Colaço, 30, was forced into handcuffs, video footage shows. He agreed to leave his car and stood with officers who searched him, while others combed through his BMW and found nothing...
Oh, well I'm sure the police are always in the wrong then.
My police office friend says it's getting to the stage where cops don't want to do anything proactive in the slightest. Basically, they'll investigate crimes when they've happened, but as for preventative measures, forget it.
AIUI, it's not so much that the people in these two incidents were stopped, it's the aggressive way the police went about it.
From the BBC piece:
They fear they were targeted because they are black and drive a Mercedes.
Do the police in the Territorial Support Group use police or unmarked cars? Genuine question.
I have no idea - what would the significance be of them using either?
Even if I'd been driving for a short distance on the wrong side of the road, if someone in an unmarked car started tailgating me I wouldn't stop unless it was clearly safe to do so. In other words, where there were plenty of people about. Or if I saw a police station.
They have a red light that they use to signal people to stop
A safety tip.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
I've been stopped by the Police with red lights before. They were definitely Police.
If you handed over cash, you've been done!
No there was someone threatening to jump off a bridge. They stopped the entire traffic of the M6 in both directions - and I was quite near the front of the queue when it happened I could see both the Police switch on their red lights and I could see the person sat dangling off the overhead bridge. We were trapped on the M6 for nearly two hours waiting for the Police to clear the person threatening to jump.
The whole time we were stopped the Police had their red lights on.
That's confirming danger! I give up on you all. Read the Highway Code. I wish I'd never started!
They stopped the traffic by switching their red lights on. As I said it happened. I was near the front of the traffic, I was overtaken by the Police vehicle which had blue lights on to get to the front of our section of traffic then switched red lights on. If I'd been about 3 cars further forward I wouldn't have been stopped and I witnessed it all.
I don't care what the Highway Code says about it - they used red to get the traffic to stop. If they shouldn't have done that argue with the Police - they did do it though.
You are technically correct.
It was my own petty pedantry that got me here. But I concede defeat on a technicality, the pedantry of other PBers has thoroughly battered my own.
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
Which is more likely though, generally speaking? (there are always exceptions to the rule) ...just watch Police Interceptors or Traffic Cops, the "crooks" swear they are telling the truth.... on their grandma's life.. That's why the police are usually believed. Not saying its right but the crooks are not known for their honesty.. I just bought this car for cash off a man in a pub.. yeahh....!
Minister has no idea why you can sit cramped on a plane but not the theatre.
I dont know why they keep putting Dowden up for radio interviews; he is always clueless.
I think he hinted at the real answer, which shows the limitations of 'Following the science'. Science can have a reasoned crack at assessing the risks, but all contact is risky. Politics, unless we are all to be hermits, has to decide what to allow and what not, using painting by numbers rather than refined technique. In the cold light of reason some of the boundaries will look absurd. Everyone knows this. Politicians can't say it because they have to hide behind a literally meaningless mantra of 'Following the science'.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
That’s just a fact, not a principle
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
It is both a fact and a principle.
A referral to the source is called a referendum. If the people elect politicians pledging that they can get it.
If the public had elected to Westminster a Labour government pledging a second EU referendum in 2019 then we'd have had a second referendum despite it being just a couple of years after the first one.
If the public don't want that then they shouldn't vote for it.
Different rules apply to constitutional change
How is what you are saying different from asserting that the 2017 parliament had the authority to set aside the result of the Brexit referendum?
It did. It could have done so at any time. The reason it did not is that there were enough Remain supporting MPs who either believed in the principle that the referendum should be honoured or feared the consequences of not doing so. But legally there was no impediment to them simply ignoring the result.
It can be either and I have been nicked A LOT. My track record on going full Grand Theft Auto and evading pursuit is good though: 3 escapes out of 3 attempts.
Blues and twos! The red was the colour of the copper's eyes after he nicked you!
British cops (in my experience) are usually too lazy to get angry. They just want the perp to incriminate themselves with minimal expenditure of effort on their part.
Plod: How fast were you going?
DA: 68 mph
Plod: My in car instruments said 124mph.
DA: It must be faulty then. Or you weren't operating it properly.
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
That was the one where the jury acquitted the officer of manslaughter. What did the police lie about?
Even ignoring Harwood saying he struck Tomlinson in the front as Tomlinson advanced on him even after he watched the video where he hit him from behind as Tomlinson walked away from him the initial police statements said that the Police heroically fought there way through a mob pelting them with missiles to tend to a collapsed man.
The video evidence that emerged later showed this not to be true.
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
Lack of elected talent is surely just a feature if getting less people elected. Having said that, it doesn"t seem to have worked the other way for the SNP yet, who also seem incredibly thin at the top, with no palatable successor to Sturgeon.
I've been stopped three times. Once for speeding (Bang to rights), once for not having a valid MOT (Forgot) and once to be breathalysed (Passed, was a bit bemused at that one)
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
That was the one where the jury acquitted the officer of manslaughter. What did the police lie about?
Even ignoring Harwood saying he struck Tomlinson in the front as Tomlinson advanced on him even after he watched the video where he hit him from behind as Tomlinson walked away from him the initial police statements said that the Police heroically fought there way through a mob pelting them with missiles to tend to a collapsed man.
The video evidence that emerged later showed this not to be true.
That's certainly one of the benefits of the video age.
Why is that Twitter person attacking Scotland, he's just an anti-Scotland unionist.
Oh dear, Carlotta is down to using Hague now, almost the level of agent pish. How desperate can unionists get, have they no-one with any with any skills that they need to use a failed pet food salesman who pretends he understands numbers. The gibberings of a moron, what point is he trying to prove with that garbage, what is he even trying to say, that the government should still be analogue.
We still on dog food 6 years later? Those Indies must be confident...
Quite appropriate - a dog food salesman showed the Independence case up as a dog's breakfast.
I think Sturgeon did well in the early days of the Covid crisis but the position in Scotland is now a joke. Yesterday I went to Tesco's, sans mask as usual. About 80% of people were the same. This is perfectly legal and apparently safe, at least until the 10th when it becomes illegal. Quite, quite bizarre.
I cannot go to the pub in Scotland or a restaurant or have my hair cut until the 15th. Why not? Well, just because. It's not because we have a higher infection rate, in fact we seem to have a lower R rate. It's just to be different.
At the moment I can go to a shop which has an external door but not to shops in shopping centres.
I won't even try to describe the rules about how many households I am allowed to have in or visit, whether it is inside or outside, whether I have to stay 2m apart or not because everyone has long since lost interest and does their own thing.
I am genuinely unclear why we still have the 2m rule in Scotland and whether there are any plans to change this to the 1m+ Its also completely ignored once you are in supermarkets or on the street but it must be a nightmare for pubs and restaurants who are contemplating opening.
I live in hope that this plain incompetence, stupidity and economic vandalism will start to be reflected in the polling. We shall see.
I've been stopped three times. Once for speeding (Bang to rights), once for not having a valid MOT (Forgot) and once to be breathalysed (Passed, was a bit bemused at that one)
I've been stopped once at 2am for driving down the middle of a road (it's a single carriageway with trees growing in the road at points).
The police took one look at the 2 screaming babies in the back of the car and let me on my way.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
Minister has no idea why you can sit cramped on a plane but not the theatre.
The policy is probably actually sane - planes don't have a lot of clusters, probably because of the way the ventilation works, passing air fast over the passengers, vertically.
It's a shame they've screwed up the messaging so badly that even the ministers don't get it. People are paying attention to any loosening measure, so each change could be rolled out separately and used as an opportunity to educate people on the threat vectors.
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle England
Smoking drugs. The US could take out the Chinese navy relatively easily.
The Chinese Navy are either going to push their luck too far or make a military mistake in the South China Sea at some point. They’re playing with fire, the whole area is way too important for international trade to allow one country to choke the seas.
We can add it to the treatment of the Urghars, Hong Kong, Coronavirus, Spyware technology and currency manipulation as reasons to stop buying Chinese goods - starting with Huawei infrastructure.
The death of Ian Tomlinson should teach us that assuming the Police are always telling the truth about an incident is not always the best decision.
Which is more likely though, generally speaking? (there are always exceptions to the rule) ...just watch Police Interceptors or Traffic Cops, the "crooks" swear they are telling the truth.... on their grandma's life.. That's why the police are usually believed. Not saying its right but the crooks are not known for their honesty.. I just bought this car for cash off a man in a pub.. yeahh....!
That's part of the problem the police have. They only meet victims of crime and criminals. So, if you aren't a victim of crime...
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the story this Spectator item relates to got picked up on PB a day or two ago. If correct, nice example of how the fake news round is working.
Am I the only one here who really can’t bring themselves to bet on something where the outcome is entirely in the gift of one man, and he has literally millions of people to choose from?
And where people are constantly pushing their own candidate and claim to have insider knowledge of the process.
Rice has certainly got many of the attributes to be a very good VP candidate for Biden - he gets on well with her, they worked together, he obviously trusts her etc.
However, she is about to hit the spotlights as the Senate investigates allegations the Obama administration tried to frustrate the handover to Trump (with Biden also in the firing line). That might not be helpful, especially if Biden is dragged into the case.
Now, I hear you saying "who cares?". And you are right, most people are more concerned re bread and butter stuff. However, Biden's issue is that his strategy relies on a number of Never Trump / traditional college educated Republicans to break ranks and vote for him, where 2-3% can make the difference in a number of states. While these Republicans don't like Trump, they may not be prepared to overlook Rice's record on the Benghazi attacks and / or more allegations come out over Rice's role in the Flynn affair.
As a general rule, if you are confident that Kamala Harris won't be the VP selection (which I am), then you can make money on the VP list by being green on each of the main runners and avoiding Harris.
So are the police supposed to ignore cars been driven on the wrong side of the road and not chase them if they refuse to stop and speed off, in the cases of where drivers are black? And then just walk away when the occupants refuse to get out of the car?
It sounds like the individuals did everything you shouldn't do, then wonder why the police give them a hard time.
On the very few occassions I have had dealings with plod over the years, after a motor accident or for being stopped for having a dirty rear number plate (which was an automotive safety issue apparently) I remained respectful at all times. Respecting the police was what my parents taught me.
Nonetheless, Jack Regan and Gene Hunt live on in a few coppers I have rubbed shoulders with through my wife's social services work.
It doesn't happen now I'm an old man, but on a couple of occasions when much younger I was treated very aggressively in spite of being polite and respectful. Of course that was a long time ago.
There are both race, class and marginalisation issues, all overlapping. If the police (or prison wardens, or asylum centre officers, or some mental care home staff, or anyone else in authority where successful complaints are unlikely), abuses are sadly frequent.
The intervention of a well-educated,smartly-dressed professional can often change matters radically. I used to know a tough white middle-aged solicitor with a cut-glass posh accent (and no particular political leanings) who said she would routinely encounter prisoners who had obviously been roughed up and were being kept in squalid conditions, whose conditions improved merely because she'd turned up and ask about them.
And no, "a black man driving a BMW" should not be sufficient evidence to justify stop and search.
Stopped three times. Once for 90 on an empty three lane dual carriageway at midnight (fair cop, although annoying as you do the same speed on most motorways most of the time and not get nicked. Other one - missed the turn off a round a bout, checked it was safe, indicated and went round again. Cops thought I was taking the piss. Breathalysed negative. Off you go sir. Last one, car in outside lane of dual carriageway, nothing on the inside. Didn't want to undertake, so stayed behind. Got flashed by a car behind, close up the arse. dabbed my brakes to indicate back off, so the unmarked plod pulls me over to bollock me. I felt he took was driving poorly (hence I suspect why nothing further happened). All because the car in front was driving poorly...
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Among the things which would be excellent but won't happen is the Tories going into a 2024 election on a manifesto promise to abolish the Scottish parliament altogether and return to a proper union. Scotland has the same population as Yorkshire. In the total UK political sphere Scotland is acting and being treated as if it's as important as the USA or China, while Yorkshire (for example) is just a region of local interest only.
England would give strong support to a Tory party promising proper parity to Scotland.
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
Classic split vote - the SNP has the independence ranks all to itself (apart from the Greens at the edges). The Unionist parties split their support amongst three.
"The Prisoner is more accurate than Orwell Everyone lives in fear of saying the wrong thing, not joining in, and being declared ‘unmutual’ By Gareth Roberts"
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Absolutely Westminster is supreme if you wish to say that Scotland is not sovereign and not equal.
That is not what Charles was saying. We all know you view Scotland as a subordinate part of the UK that you'd be prepared to send Stormtroopers too in order to prevent dissent. But for people who claim to respect Scotland or view it as "an equal partner" then that is a different matter.
Westminster could have as many referenda on Europe as it wanted as it was a sovereign independent power. Scotland is not but if people wish to say it is then they should afford Scots the same right.
I think Sturgeon did well in the early days of the Covid crisis but the position in Scotland is now a joke. Yesterday I went to Tesco's, sans mask as usual. About 80% of people were the same. This is perfectly legal and apparently safe, at least until the 10th when it becomes illegal. Quite, quite bizarre.
I cannot go to the pub in Scotland or a restaurant or have my hair cut until the 15th. Why not? Well, just because. It's not because we have a higher infection rate, in fact we seem to have a lower R rate. It's just to be different.
At the moment I can go to a shop which has an external door but not to shops in shopping centres.
I won't even try to describe the rules about how many households I am allowed to have in or visit, whether it is inside or outside, whether I have to stay 2m apart or not because everyone has long since lost interest and does their own thing.
I am genuinely unclear why we still have the 2m rule in Scotland and whether there are any plans to change this to the 1m+ Its also completely ignored once you are in supermarkets or on the street but it must be a nightmare for pubs and restaurants who are contemplating opening.
I live in hope that this plain incompetence, stupidity and economic vandalism will start to be reflected in the polling. We shall see.
I think the question for Scotland is “is Sturgeon being advised to pursue an “elimination” strategy?” - if she’s following the advice of Devi Sridhar, then she could be.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no new cases) is attempting that - the best you can aim for is “suppression” which is what the U.K. appears to be doing. The Guernsey Medical Director explicitly ruled out “elimination” as a goal.
While COVID is present globally “elimination” is a fool’s errand.
Minister has no idea why you can sit cramped on a plane but not the theatre.
The policy is probably actually sane - planes don't have a lot of clusters, probably because of the way the ventilation works, passing air fast over the passengers, vertically.
It's a shame they've screwed up the messaging so badly that even the ministers don't get it. People are paying attention to any loosening measure, so each change could be rolled out separately and used as an opportunity to educate people on the threat vectors.
"At this time, venues should not permit live performances, including drama, comedy and music, to take place in front of a live audience. This is important to mitigate the risks of aerosol transmission - from either the performer(s) or their audience. There will be further guidance setting out how performing arts activity can be managed safely in other settings, for instance rehearsing or broadcast without an audience."
It is trivial to manage. Just close the front row or two.
From a way previous post re the LD election contest.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Absolutely Westminster is supreme if you wish to say that Scotland is not sovereign and not equal.
That is not what Charles was saying. We all know you view Scotland as a subordinate part of the UK that you'd be prepared to send Stormtroopers too in order to prevent dissent. But for people who claim to respect Scotland or view it as "an equal partner" then that is a different matter.
Westminster could have as many referenda on Europe as it wanted as it was a sovereign independent power. Scotland is not but if people wish to say it is then they should afford Scots the same right.
What do you mean - if someone "wishes to say" that Scotland is not sovereign?
From a way previous post re the LD election contest.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
There's the Greens in that space too, though, remember. And they have serious potential upside if you look at how they perform in some other Western European countries.
Stopped three times. Once for 90 on an empty three lane dual carriageway at midnight (fair cop, although annoying as you do the same speed on most motorways most of the time and not get nicked. Other one - missed the turn off a round a bout, checked it was safe, indicated and went round again. Cops thought I was taking the piss. Breathalysed negative. Off you go sir. Last one, car in outside lane of dual carriageway, nothing on the inside. Didn't want to undertake, so stayed behind. Got flashed by a car behind, close up the arse. dabbed my brakes to indicate back off, so the unmarked plod pulls me over to bollock me. I felt he took was driving poorly (hence I suspect why nothing further happened). All because the car in front was driving poorly...
Going around if you miss your exit - or if you’re in any doubt as to whether you’ll make your exit - is exactly the correct way to behave.
Accidents on roundabouts and motorways usually happen because someone swerves at the last minute, realising they’re about to go the wrong way.
Pilots get taught this very early in their training - if in doubt, go around, and if you are questioning whether you are in doubt, then you are.
Minister has no idea why you can sit cramped on a plane but not the theatre.
The policy is probably actually sane - planes don't have a lot of clusters, probably because of the way the ventilation works, passing air fast over the passengers, vertically.
It's a shame they've screwed up the messaging so badly that even the ministers don't get it. People are paying attention to any loosening measure, so each change could be rolled out separately and used as an opportunity to educate people on the threat vectors.
"At this time, venues should not permit live performances, including drama, comedy and music, to take place in front of a live audience. This is important to mitigate the risks of aerosol transmission - from either the performer(s) or their audience. There will be further guidance setting out how performing arts activity can be managed safely in other settings, for instance rehearsing or broadcast without an audience."
It is trivial to manage. Just close the front row or two.
That doesn’t remotely deal with ventilation - in an aircraft cabin the entire cabin air is changed every 2-3 minutes with a mix of fresh air and recycled air which is HEPA filtered. Not even our most modern theatres come remotely close (for one thing, it’s noisy) let alone our Victorian ones.
Minister has no idea why you can sit cramped on a plane but not the theatre.
The policy is probably actually sane - planes don't have a lot of clusters, probably because of the way the ventilation works, passing air fast over the passengers, vertically.
It's a shame they've screwed up the messaging so badly that even the ministers don't get it. People are paying attention to any loosening measure, so each change could be rolled out separately and used as an opportunity to educate people on the threat vectors.
"At this time, venues should not permit live performances, including drama, comedy and music, to take place in front of a live audience. This is important to mitigate the risks of aerosol transmission - from either the performer(s) or their audience. There will be further guidance setting out how performing arts activity can be managed safely in other settings, for instance rehearsing or broadcast without an audience."
It is trivial to manage. Just close the front row or two.
That doesn’t remotely deal with ventilation - in an aircraft cabin the entire cabin air is changed every 2-3 minutes with a mix of fresh air and recycled air which is HEPA filtered. Not even our most modern theatres come remotely close (for one thing, it’s noisy) let alone out Victorian ones.
Im not saying it is safe or not safe to open theatres. I am not an expert in h&s or disease control.
I am saying that the prime reason published by the government why theatres shouldnt open is nonsense and can be easily mitigated.
I've been stopped three times. Once for speeding (Bang to rights), once for not having a valid MOT (Forgot) and once to be breathalysed (Passed, was a bit bemused at that one)
I've been stopped once at 2am for driving down the middle of a road (it's a single carriageway with trees growing in the road at points).
The police took one look at the 2 screaming babies in the back of the car and let me on my way.
After that they usually just flashed and waved..
Kids in the car do tend to soften the Police it seems in my experience.
I was stopped December last year in the dark for driving erratically. I was trying to adjust my headlights and accidentally put my fog lights on instead. It was about 5pm and we were taking the kids to Chester Zoo for an after-dark light show they do every Christmas and were about a mile from the Zoo.
The cop who pulled me over visibly relaxed when he came to my window looked in the back and saw two young children in the back. He asked why I'd put my fog lights on, whether I'd been drinking (no) and what we were doing. After apologising, saying I'd made a mistake and explaining we were taking the kids to the zoo he ran my details then let me go with no further issue. Didn't even get asked to blow into a breathalyser which I fully expected I'd need to do.
It can be either and I have been nicked A LOT. My track record on going full Grand Theft Auto and evading pursuit is good though: 3 escapes out of 3 attempts.
Blues and twos! The red was the colour of the copper's eyes after he nicked you!
British cops (in my experience) are usually too lazy to get angry. They just want the perp to incriminate themselves with minimal expenditure of effort on their part.
Plod: How fast were you going?
DA: 68 mph
Plod: My in car instruments said 124mph.
DA: It must be faulty then. Or you weren't operating it properly.
etc., etc.
When I got pulled for the dirty rear plate, another car cut up the police car nearly broadsiding it. After I had licked the number plate clean and we were friends again, I asked one of the coppers why they hadn't nicked the other driver. One of them said they thought about it. I was an easy tug, they were off shift in 20 minutes and careless driving paperwork (they had video footage to prove the case) would have taken all evening.
From a way previous post re the LD election contest.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
Of the top 50 LD target seats just 4 are held by Labour, the vast majority are held by the Tories.
It is Tory Remain voters they need to win seats not Labour voters who are largely tactically voting for them anyway.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Absolutely Westminster is supreme if you wish to say that Scotland is not sovereign and not equal.
That is not what Charles was saying. We all know you view Scotland as a subordinate part of the UK that you'd be prepared to send Stormtroopers too in order to prevent dissent. But for people who claim to respect Scotland or view it as "an equal partner" then that is a different matter.
Westminster could have as many referenda on Europe as it wanted as it was a sovereign independent power. Scotland is not but if people wish to say it is then they should afford Scots the same right.
What do you mean - if someone "wishes to say" that Scotland is not sovereign?
Scotland is NOT sovereign. This is a fact.
Legally or ethically?
Sovereignty is a bit of a myth though, a polite fiction. Hence phrases like "popular sovereignty" or "parliamentary sovereignty".
One could say the UK was 'always sovereign' in the EU because we could choose to leave, if one wishes to say that Scotland is sovereign within the UK because they choose to remain and could choose to leave then they must be permitted to choose whether to remain or leave.
If you're prepared to say the Scots have no right to demand to leave democratically then you are explicitly saying the Scottish people are not sovereign or an equal partner.
I assume that's sincere. I can imagine that Linekar would care more about luvvies and their "arts" rather than lower league football clubs who will be told to swivel.
Minister has no idea why you can sit cramped on a plane but not the theatre.
The policy is probably actually sane - planes don't have a lot of clusters, probably because of the way the ventilation works, passing air fast over the passengers, vertically.
It's a shame they've screwed up the messaging so badly that even the ministers don't get it. People are paying attention to any loosening measure, so each change could be rolled out separately and used as an opportunity to educate people on the threat vectors.
"At this time, venues should not permit live performances, including drama, comedy and music, to take place in front of a live audience. This is important to mitigate the risks of aerosol transmission - from either the performer(s) or their audience. There will be further guidance setting out how performing arts activity can be managed safely in other settings, for instance rehearsing or broadcast without an audience."
It is trivial to manage. Just close the front row or two.
That doesn’t remotely deal with ventilation - in an aircraft cabin the entire cabin air is changed every 2-3 minutes with a mix of fresh air and recycled air which is HEPA filtered. Not even our most modern theatres come remotely close (for one thing, it’s noisy) let alone our Victorian ones.
Theatres, comedy clubs and nightclubs are going to be the very last places to re-open, let’s hope the government aid ends up at the grass roots of these industries - which are full of self-employed people often barely scratching a living, with a few very rich people at the top.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Because Parliament is for day to day government No one benefits from a permanent state of constitutional upheaval
You may think nobody benefits from it perhaps but democracy matters. If people don't want a state of upheaval then they shouldn't vote for a permanent state of constitutional upheaval. If the people have voted for upheaval then they should get it. If they haven't they shouldn't. What's wrong with that concept?
Remind me please, which party went into the last election on a platform of constitutional unheaval?
At the last Westminster one pretty much all of the major (and many minor) parties over Brexit - either upheaval by continuing with it, upheaval over withdrawing Article 50 or upheaval over future referenda.
At the last and probably next Holyrood election then the SNP.
But that's democracy for you. People have the right to vote for upheaval - and if they lose that we cease to be a democracy.
Oh, I yjought the Conservatives´plan for Brexit was an orderly withdrawal, not chaotic unheaval. Was that yet another Conservative lie from he Johnson gang?
Even an orderly withdrawal is still a form of upheaval. Its interesting you chose to add the word "chaotic" as an adjective in this post but didn't use it in the last one.
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Among the things which would be excellent but won't happen is the Tories going into a 2024 election on a manifesto promise to abolish the Scottish parliament altogether and return to a proper union. Scotland has the same population as Yorkshire. In the total UK political sphere Scotland is acting and being treated as if it's as important as the USA or China, while Yorkshire (for example) is just a region of local interest only.
England would give strong support to a Tory party promising proper parity to Scotland.
Personally I would prefer an English Parliament in a Federal UK to scrapping Holyrood but some Tories would prefer to scrap Holyrood and Cardiff Bay and return to the Union as originally intended. The 'Abolish the Welsh Assembly' parry is standing in the Welsh elections next year for example
It makes no sense not to have another referendum on Scottish Independence.
How can anyone argue that the decision in 2016 by the UK to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to Remain, doesn't constitute significant change to the basis on which they voted to stay part of the UK in 2014 is beyond me. Especially as a lot of the people making that argument did want another EU referendum just because the Remainers in parliament wouldn't respect the will o' the people
The criteria of “significant change” was made up by advocates of another referendum.
There need to be clear and simple principles on how often the question can be asked. Time is the easiest and most transparent. I like 20 years because it gives a frequent review without overshadowing the normal business of government
Why not once per Parliament if that's what the public votes for?
No Parliament can bind its successor and if people want to stop having referenda they can stop electing politicians pledged to holding them.
Charles is thinking of his bankbook not democracy, he would prefer we remain a colony against our will.
I don’t know what you like in your relationships, but I see Scotland as an equal partner, not some kind of weird submission thing
If they're an equal partner they ought to be able to determine equally their constitutional future at any election - just as Westminster has the ability to do.
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
Yes and Westminster is the supreme UK Parliament which created Holyrood in the first place and under the Scotland Act 1998 Westminster consent is needed for any indyref2.
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
Among the things which would be excellent but won't happen is the Tories going into a 2024 election on a manifesto promise to abolish the Scottish parliament altogether and return to a proper union. Scotland has the same population as Yorkshire. In the total UK political sphere Scotland is acting and being treated as if it's as important as the USA or China, while Yorkshire (for example) is just a region of local interest only.
England would give strong support to a Tory party promising proper parity to Scotland.
The trouble with reverting to the pre-1977 position is that the UK is not, in fact, homogeneous, and Scotland is not equivalent to Yorkshire. Scotland has its own national legal and other systems as guaranteed by the Treaty of Union. To have those controlled by a massive majority of non-Scottish MPs at Westminster would, effectively, mean that the Scots could no longer control their own laws, certainly at times of Tory majorities in Westminster. That would bring us back to the original democratic deficit, only with a SNP rather than Labour majority in the Scottish seats at Westminster, and the idea of independence far further on than in the 1960s and 1970s.
On topic, inevitable? Getting close to that I think. The timescale is still highly uncertain. As a non-resident Scot I don't have a vote, but I would have voted No in 2014 and would vote Yes now. Scotland is its own country and needs to forge its own way in the world, free from the death grip of Westminster politics.
It will come down to whether he knew the pornographer Richard Desmond was Jewish or not. As he is usually described as a pornographer not much attention has been given to his religion.
Comments
Do you agree in Westminster with the principle that "no Parliament can bind its successors"?
At the last and probably next Holyrood election then the SNP.
But that's democracy for you. People have the right to vote for upheaval - and if they lose that we cease to be a democracy.
You refer to the people every so often. That’s not every 5 years.
If you are stopped by a "police" car driver with a flashing red light, don't stop. They are not the police
Something like this. Of course no wrong un could ever get hold of such an object as part of a robbery or worse.
If you wish to change that then go for a codified and hard to change constitution but that is categorically not the British constitution.
In any event I remain of the belief that constitutional change requires a referral to the source of parliament’s authority.
A referral to the source is called a referendum. If the people elect politicians pledging that they can get it.
If the public had elected to Westminster a Labour government pledging a second EU referendum in 2019 then we'd have had a second referendum despite it being just a couple of years after the first one.
If the public don't want that then they shouldn't vote for it.
How is what you are saying different from asserting that the 2017 parliament had the authority to set aside the result of the Brexit referendum?
Lord West (on rumoured defence cuts)
There is no difference. No Parliament can bind its successors.
The 2017 or 2019 Parliaments had the authority to set aside the 2016 referenda and seek a new one. So too there is no principled difference to the 2021 Holyrood Parliament seeking to set aside the result of the SindyRef and seek a new referenda. The two principles are identical.
Or controlling robot warriors. Whose presence on battlefield can't be long away now.
The whole time we were stopped the Police had their red lights on.
Rice comes into 5.5
Somethings happening...
As a general point, no person or organisation should ever be considered above suspicion.
I doubt the traffic would have stopped if they'd simply had their blue lights on. They used red to indicate stop. If you don't think they should have done that argue with the Police not me.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/anatomy-of-a-fake-news-story-the-tale-of-the-idiot-brexit-voters/amp
PS However I really do know Brexit voters who had no idea that FoM etc changes would affect both directions.
I don't care what the Highway Code says about it - they used red to get the traffic to stop. If they shouldn't have done that argue with the Police - they did do it though.
Edit actually a bit more as he could end up the P nominee, not the VP - so you have two ways to win, Trump chooses someone else or Trump pulls out.
tlg86 is relying on the idea that acquittal = innocence. It doesn't. In a criminal case (which this was) it is consistent with being probably guilty but just maybe possibly not.
I don't know if there have been studies on this, but I'm not aware of claims that juries are more lenient on coppers. I can certainly think of a case where a judge was very lenient on a lawyer.
But I was just interested if there was something the police said that later turned out to be untrue. Wasn't the Tomlinson incident caught on camera? I can't remember if that came out after the story broke.
It was my own petty pedantry that got me here. But I concede defeat on a technicality, the pedantry of other PBers has
thoroughly battered my own.
Plod: How fast were you going?
DA: 68 mph
Plod: My in car instruments said 124mph.
DA: It must be faulty then. Or you weren't operating it properly.
etc., etc.
The video evidence that emerged later showed this not to be true.
Quite appropriate - a dog food salesman showed the Independence case up as a dog's breakfast.
I cannot go to the pub in Scotland or a restaurant or have my hair cut until the 15th. Why not? Well, just because. It's not because we have a higher infection rate, in fact we seem to have a lower R rate. It's just to be different.
At the moment I can go to a shop which has an external door but not to shops in shopping centres.
I won't even try to describe the rules about how many households I am allowed to have in or visit, whether it is inside or outside, whether I have to stay 2m apart or not because everyone has long since lost interest and does their own thing.
I am genuinely unclear why we still have the 2m rule in Scotland and whether there are any plans to change this to the 1m+ Its also completely ignored once you are in supermarkets or on the street but it must be a nightmare for pubs and restaurants who are contemplating opening.
I live in hope that this plain incompetence, stupidity and economic vandalism will start to be reflected in the polling. We shall see.
The police took one look at the 2 screaming babies in the back of the car and let me on my way.
After that they usually just flashed and waved..
That was given in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament but will not be given in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament as a majority of MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to of no indyref2 for a generation.
If a majority is elected in the 2024 to 2029 Parliament to consent to an indyref that is up to that Parliament
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
It's a shame they've screwed up the messaging so badly that even the ministers don't get it. People are paying attention to any loosening measure, so each change could be rolled out separately and used as an opportunity to educate people on the threat vectors.
Rice has certainly got many of the attributes to be a very good VP candidate for Biden - he gets on well with her, they worked together, he obviously trusts her etc.
However, she is about to hit the spotlights as the Senate investigates allegations the Obama administration tried to frustrate the handover to Trump (with Biden also in the firing line). That might not be helpful, especially if Biden is dragged into the case.
Now, I hear you saying "who cares?". And you are right, most people are more concerned re bread and butter stuff. However, Biden's issue is that his strategy relies on a number of Never Trump / traditional college educated Republicans to break ranks and vote for him, where 2-3% can make the difference in a number of states. While these Republicans don't like Trump, they may not be prepared to overlook Rice's record on the Benghazi attacks and / or more allegations come out over Rice's role in the Flynn affair.
As a general rule, if you are confident that Kamala Harris won't be the VP selection (which I am), then you can make money on the VP list by being green on each of the main runners and avoiding Harris.
The intervention of a well-educated,smartly-dressed professional can often change matters radically. I used to know a tough white middle-aged solicitor with a cut-glass posh accent (and no particular political leanings) who said she would routinely encounter prisoners who had obviously been roughed up and were being kept in squalid conditions, whose conditions improved merely because she'd turned up and ask about them.
And no, "a black man driving a BMW" should not be sufficient evidence to justify stop and search.
England would give strong support to a Tory party promising proper parity to Scotland.
That is not what Charles was saying. We all know you view Scotland as a subordinate part of the UK that you'd be prepared to send Stormtroopers too in order to prevent dissent. But for people who claim to respect Scotland or view it as "an equal partner" then that is a different matter.
Westminster could have as many referenda on Europe as it wanted as it was a sovereign independent power. Scotland is not but if people wish to say it is then they should afford Scots the same right.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no new cases) is attempting that - the best you can aim for is “suppression” which is what the U.K. appears to be doing. The Guernsey Medical Director explicitly ruled out “elimination” as a goal.
While COVID is present globally “elimination” is a fool’s errand.
The reason is given here:
"At this time, venues should not permit live performances, including drama, comedy and music, to take place in front of a live audience. This is important to mitigate the risks of aerosol transmission - from either the performer(s) or their audience. There will be further guidance setting out how performing arts activity can be managed safely in other settings, for instance rehearsing or broadcast without an audience."
It is trivial to manage. Just close the front row or two.
If the LDs want to have any chance of breaking through to become a major credible force, then they need to take a (big) risk and go with Moran. I think there is a decent chance that, under SKS, the Labour leadership manages to p1ss a number of its more left wing activists, members and even MPs who are excited by Israel / Palestine, Black Lives Matter, the environment etc as it strives to recover WWC votes in the North and Midlands. A Moran-led LD party could be a natural home for many of these types (and would fit in with much of the LD rank and file) and it could mean that the LDs, not Labour, becomes the natural home for liberal graduates / professionals which could be quite meaningful.
Yes, that loses them socially liberal Tory-style seats but, quite frankly, going down that route just leads them to being a perpetual minor party that, if push came to shove, would have to join up with the Tories in a coalition.
Scotland is NOT sovereign. This is a fact.
Accidents on roundabouts and motorways usually happen because someone swerves at the last minute, realising they’re about to go the wrong way.
Pilots get taught this very early in their training - if in doubt, go around, and if you are questioning whether you are in doubt, then you are.
I am saying that the prime reason published by the government why theatres shouldnt open is nonsense and can be easily mitigated.
I was stopped December last year in the dark for driving erratically. I was trying to adjust my headlights and accidentally put my fog lights on instead. It was about 5pm and we were taking the kids to Chester Zoo for an after-dark light show they do every Christmas and were about a mile from the Zoo.
The cop who pulled me over visibly relaxed when he came to my window looked in the back and saw two young children in the back. He asked why I'd put my fog lights on, whether I'd been drinking (no) and what we were doing. After apologising, saying I'd made a mistake and explaining we were taking the kids to the zoo he ran my details then let me go with no further issue. Didn't even get asked to blow into a breathalyser which I fully expected I'd need to do.
It is Tory Remain voters they need to win seats not Labour voters who are largely tactically voting for them anyway.
That means Davey not Moran
https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1279468601909616640
Sovereignty is a bit of a myth though, a polite fiction. Hence phrases like "popular sovereignty" or "parliamentary sovereignty".
One could say the UK was 'always sovereign' in the EU because we could choose to leave, if one wishes to say that Scotland is sovereign within the UK because they choose to remain and could choose to leave then they must be permitted to choose whether to remain or leave.
If you're prepared to say the Scots have no right to demand to leave democratically then you are explicitly saying the Scottish people are not sovereign or an equal partner.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa031349
Theatres, comedy clubs and nightclubs are going to be the very last places to re-open, let’s hope the government aid ends up at the grass roots of these industries - which are full of self-employed people often barely scratching a living, with a few very rich people at the top.
Bait and switch isn't clever.