It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
They cannot choose 'not to obey the law.' They can choose to take the sanction as preferable to obeying the law, which is different.
Only automatons could actually not choose to break the law, and humans aren't.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
If you break the law, in any state, you are at risk of sanction. The severity of the sanction will vary, from a caution to execution, but the state can enforce all its laws. Indeed enforcing laws is literally all a state does. All a state is is a collection of laws. To paraphrase Weber a state is a compulsory organisation that holds the monopoly on violence in a territory - that compulsion is effected by abstract concepts we call “laws” breach of which, ultimately, will trigger state violence, from bailiffs knocking down your door to enforce a debt judgment to the hangman pulling the lever, with a variety of other mechanisms in between.
Your anti-German dig is very on brand.
The law should be enforced, or even that the law must be enforced, or even the law may be enforced are three different concepts and are all very different to the idea that the law must be obeyed.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."
Well, better safe than sorry.
George Square.
Named after King George III.
Wikipedia: "During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"
Would anyone like to sign a petition?
It appears what we need to do is rename every street and building using simply a random combination of alpha-numeric characters.
I can see the headline now: "Nelson Mandela House renamed to KKK BNP."
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
People, even in the Europe you despise so much, can choose not to obey the law. However, when they choose not to do so, the state can punish them. You cannot choose not to be punished. Ultimately that’s what the State is all about. You can opt out of the law and commit a crime tomorrow, your choice, but you cannot opt out of the consequences. Johnson can breach international law and must face the consequences. I can murder someone or smoke a spliff and must face the consequences. That’s the point. The consequences are out of our hands even if the act is not. The State may choose not to do anything (as it often does with minor offenders) but that is its choice. Similarly the international community (through the UN, WTO or just collective action) can choose to let a breach of the law pass or not. It’s not up to us.
"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."
Well, better safe than sorry.
George Square.
Named after King George III.
Wikipedia: "During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"
Would anyone like to sign a petition?
It appears what we need to do is rename every street and building using simply a random combination of alpha-numeric characters.
I can see the headline now: "Nelson Mandela House renamed to KKK BNP."
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
I think it's 'must' in the sense of 'obliged to' rather than 'night must follow day', within the sphere of laws of nature.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
Hume appears to have based his views partly on 'NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE', of which he presumably had some experience.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
You are confusing must with will.
Telling someone they must do something does not mean they will do it.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.
Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!
You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'
That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.
People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.
If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?
Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.
You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.
You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.
If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.
People, even in the Europe you despise so much, can choose not to obey the law. However, when they choose not to do so, the state can punish them. You cannot choose not to be punished. Ultimately that’s what the State is all about. You can opt out of the law and commit a crime tomorrow, your choice, but you cannot opt out of the consequences. Johnson can breach international law and must face the consequences. I can murder someone or smoke a spliff and must face the consequences. That’s the point. The consequences are out of our hands even if the act is not. The State may choose not to do anything (as it often does with minor offenders) but that is its choice. Similarly the international community (through the UN, WTO or just collective action) can choose to let a breach of the law pass or not. It’s not up to us.
Agree totally - and the International Community frequently allows breaches to go unpunished - mostly through realpolitik. Indeed the EU frequently allows member states to breach its own rules for all sorts of reasons. I think the topic has really been done to death on here - the outrage bus has come along not just in twos and threes but it seems ad infinitum. More again today and all because Opinium didn't produced the hoped for Labour lead.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
If you break the law, in any state, you are at risk of sanction. The severity of the sanction will vary, from a caution to execution, but the state can enforce all its laws. Indeed enforcing laws is literally all a state does. All a state is is a collection of laws. To paraphrase Weber a state is a compulsory organisation that holds the monopoly on violence in a territory - that compulsion is effected by abstract concepts we call “laws” breach of which, ultimately, will trigger state violence, from bailiffs knocking down your door to enforce a debt judgment to the hangman pulling the lever, with a variety of other mechanisms in between.
Your anti-German dig is very on brand.
The law should be enforced, or even that the law must be enforced, or even the law may be enforced are three different concepts and are all very different to the idea that the law must be obeyed.
Mmm. So there is a difference (at least in this respect) between homo sapiens and pre-programmed computers then. Who knew.
But what about the anti German comment? Was that a similar impulse to the one which sometimes leads to you calling the French "frogs"?
To answer the question of the previous thread, the probability of an EC tie given by the models is 0.475% (538), 0.3975% (Economist). So you'd want something north of 200/1.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
If you break the law, in any state, you are at risk of sanction. The severity of the sanction will vary, from a caution to execution, but the state can enforce all its laws. Indeed enforcing laws is literally all a state does. All a state is is a collection of laws. To paraphrase Weber a state is a compulsory organisation that holds the monopoly on violence in a territory - that compulsion is effected by abstract concepts we call “laws” breach of which, ultimately, will trigger state violence, from bailiffs knocking down your door to enforce a debt judgment to the hangman pulling the lever, with a variety of other mechanisms in between.
Your anti-German dig is very on brand.
The law should be enforced, or even that the law must be enforced, or even the law may be enforced are three different concepts and are all very different to the idea that the law must be obeyed.
Mmm. So there is a difference (at least in this respect) between homo sapiens and pre-programmed computers then. Who knew.
But what about the anti German comment? Was that a similar impulse to the one which sometimes leads to you calling the French "frogs"?
It was anti-fascist, reductio ad absurdum sentiment.
Anyone know how I can get a decent fixed font in Vanilla comments on PB? The 'code' tag seems to strip new lines, as does 'tt'' A 'pre' tag works up to a point, but you get the bizarre colour variations as you can see in my previous post (and a rather small font).
FPT Sean F said: ' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'
Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.
I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?
FPT Sean F said: ' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'
Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.
I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?
No.
Actually I think I’ve been corrected in the past for the same error, now where did I leave my wallet, glasses, book ........
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.
That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'
The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.
But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.
Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.
No we don't. We don't live in such a country.
Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!
Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.
Were you really unaware of this?
The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.
We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".
If you break the law, in any state, you are at risk of sanction. The severity of the sanction will vary, from a caution to execution, but the state can enforce all its laws. Indeed enforcing laws is literally all a state does. All a state is is a collection of laws. To paraphrase Weber a state is a compulsory organisation that holds the monopoly on violence in a territory - that compulsion is effected by abstract concepts we call “laws” breach of which, ultimately, will trigger state violence, from bailiffs knocking down your door to enforce a debt judgment to the hangman pulling the lever, with a variety of other mechanisms in between.
Your anti-German dig is very on brand.
The law should be enforced, or even that the law must be enforced, or even the law may be enforced are three different concepts and are all very different to the idea that the law must be obeyed.
Mmm. So there is a difference (at least in this respect) between homo sapiens and pre-programmed computers then. Who knew.
But what about the anti German comment? Was that a similar impulse to the one which sometimes leads to you calling the French "frogs"?
It was anti-fascist, reductio ad absurdum sentiment.
It wasn't. I know "anti-fascist reductio ad absurdum sentiment" when I see it. That was something called "fatuous banality enlivened with a dash of casual xenophobia." I know that when I see it too.
To answer the question of the previous thread, the probability of an EC tie given by the models is 0.475% (538), 0.3975% (Economist). So you'd want something north of 200/1.
Thanks Richard. Trump has had a few half-decent polls in the last 48 hours, including a -5 in a 'National' from Fox. When this has happened before it's invariably been followed by a few strong polls for Biden, so no need for anybody to get excited, but I expect the next price move will be a slight shortening of the Donald's price.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
If Nick Timothy knows what Labour's policy on Brexit is, and the details of the sort of deal they want could he please tell the rest of us. How is it that Nick knows but SKS doesn't?
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Michael Vaughan Ex-England captain on Test Match Special
Any small 30-40-run partnership is going to be absolutely crucial. If England can just muster a partnership and get to the last 10 overs, with five wickets in hand, and be around 170-180.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
If Nick Timothy knows what Labour's policy on Brexit is, and the details of the sort of deal they want could he please tell the rest of us. How is it that Nick knows but SKS doesn't?
SKS has been very clear on Labour's Brexit Policy. Boris owns Brexit and everything most be done to ensure even the general public know it's Boris's (and his Government's) fault.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Still not the most embarrassing thing about St John's.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
I think abortion is the most obvious issue that could flip as it is such a tricky issue.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Still not the most embarrassing thing about St John's.
They let in Richard Burgon.
I am absolutely convinced there is another Richard Burgon (or close spelling) who applied at the same time and the old duffer who interviewed him got confused.
I had a tutor who repeated referred to a female student (who from a distant did look rather manly and dressed so) as if she was male! Good job it wasn't today's society, otherwise the short sighted old duffer would be front page news.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
The governments notwithstanding clause is nothing like this one from the Bible. Exodus 21:20-21 it is ok to beat your slaves, just don't beat them to death. Though if they die a few days after you beat them that is ok because then the slave is only money.
If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic, that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
It was a parable not a truth.
I thought the gospel was about the Master who forgave his servant 10,000 talents but the servant would not forgive his slave 100 denarii..
Its a parable because it would have been impossible for a servant to owe a master 10,000 talents and compared to 100 denarii, figuratively speaking,10,000 talents is about equivalent to our national debt!!!
"The point of this parable is clear. Forgiveness lies at the heart of our faith in God and our love of one another. Forgiveness, which we receive from God our King in the person of Jesus is what our King expects from his subjects in their dealings with each other.".. (text is from the www. but my vicar said as much this morning.)
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
The death penalty may become acceptable again.
I'm about to lead a U3A discussion of John Stuart Mill's speech to Parliament in 1868 in favour of capital punishment.
Mill argues that the pain of indefinite incarceration is worse than that of bringing forward the date of inevitable death. He also argues that the terror of capital punishment is greater than the terror of life imprisonment so it is more effective.
So he argues that you get the double win of less pain to the offender with greater deterrence to others. It's also cheaper which might appeal more the way things are going.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Still not the most embarrassing thing about St John's.
They let in Richard Burgon.
I am absolutely convinced there is another Richard Burgon (or close spelling) who applied at the same time and the old duffer who interviewed him got confused.
I had a tutor who repeated referred to a female student (who from a distant did look rather manly and dressed so) as if she was male! Good job it wasn't today's society, otherwise the short sighted old duffer would be front page news.
Or. Maybe they let him in to play some kind of sport for the college team?
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Still not the most embarrassing thing about St John's.
They let in Richard Burgon.
I am absolutely convinced there is another Richard Burgon (or close spelling) who applied at the same time and the old duffer who interviewed him got confused.
I had a tutor who repeated referred to a female student (who from a distant did look rather manly and dressed so) as if she was male! Good job it wasn't today's society, otherwise the short sighted old duffer would be front page news.
It would explain a great many things, there are some that like to play Professor Higgins to some intellectual Eliza Doolittle.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Yup, best policy is to keep your arms as close to your body as possible.
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
I think if we start looking at the background of every founder of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge it won't be hard to find that they all had problematic views by modern standards e.g. Christ's College was William Byngham, a vicar, so nailed on he won't have been onboard with LGBTQ rights...and he was an advocate for Grammar schools (instant cancellation by lefties and TSE) !!!!
Just thinking about the Trinities.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
St John's Cambridge founded by a Waynetta Slob who had a baby at 13.
Still not the most embarrassing thing about St John's.
They let in Richard Burgon.
I am absolutely convinced there is another Richard Burgon (or close spelling) who applied at the same time and the old duffer who interviewed him got confused.
I had a tutor who repeated referred to a female student (who from a distant did look rather manly and dressed so) as if she was male! Good job it wasn't today's society, otherwise the short sighted old duffer would be front page news.
Or. Maybe they let him in to play some kind of sport for the college team?
Dicky Burgon doesn't strike me as somebody who was a likely rowing or rugger stud.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Yup, best policy is to keep your arms as close to your body as possible.
Just to be clear, I mean that once it deflects, it can't be handball, just as it can't be LBW.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Sky mentioned that there was a new handball rule this season. Anyone know what the change is?
To answer the question of the previous thread, the probability of an EC tie given by the models is 0.475% (538), 0.3975% (Economist). So you'd want something north of 200/1.
Thanks Richard. Trump has had a few half-decent polls in the last 48 hours, including a -5 in a 'National' from Fox. When this has happened before it's invariably been followed by a few strong polls for Biden, so no need for anybody to get excited, but I expect the next price move will be a slight shortening of the Donald's price.
I do not believe the market is moving in response to polls. I believe the market is moving in response to pundits. . If you predict what utterly trivial thing the beltway media will focus on next you can predict the market movements.
Sensible Tories boggle that their government would trash Britain’s reputation as a trustworthy international partner, wreck our trade and security relations with our closest neighbours and risk the prospects of many existing British businesses so that Number 10’s self-appointed genius can fantasise that he is a cross between Elon Musk, Sergey Brin and Masayoshi Son while splashing taxpayers’ money at any “moonshot” idea that launches off the top of his head. This is a most surreal place for the Conservative party to have got to.
When I put in a call to one senior Tory, our conversation began with him asking: “Covid or Brexit? Which shitshow do you want to talk about?”
There are plenty of skilled diplomats and civil servants working for the British government with the connections and expertise to have spotted how badly this reckless gambit would backfire, but the behaviour of Number 10 deters them from offering candid advice. As one senior Tory puts it: “The climate of fear in Whitehall that they (Johnson and Cummings) have created means that officials do not rush to warn them when they are about to make a mistake.”
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Sky mentioned that there was a new handball rule this season. Anyone know what the change is?
It's only handball if it hits below the t-shirt line (why aren't they wearing long sleeves, asked my dad!).
There was a handball given in the Liverpool v Leeds game for above that line.
If Nick Timothy knows what Labour's policy on Brexit is, and the details of the sort of deal they want could he please tell the rest of us. How is it that Nick knows but SKS doesn't?
SKS has been very clear on Labour's Brexit Policy. Boris owns Brexit and everything most be done to ensure even the general public know it's Boris's (and his Government's) fault.
Exactly. Which is good politics and also 100% fair. Johnson was elected specifically 8 months ago to get Brexit done. He promised that if elected he would get it done - and quickly too. Time to deliver now, Mr PM. You have an 80 seat majority. All other parties are irrelevant. Get on with it for heaven's sake.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
The death penalty may become acceptable again.
The Daily Mail, has always had a soft spot for it, and Sun editorials are very enthusiastic if the offence is child, treason or terrorism related.
Johnson doesn't believe in the restoration of capital punishment, but then he didn't really believe in Brexit either.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
The death penalty may become acceptable again.
Good one. I can just about envisage that - but even so I really can't.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Sky mentioned that there was a new handball rule this season. Anyone know what the change is?
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
If Nick Timothy knows what Labour's policy on Brexit is, and the details of the sort of deal they want could he please tell the rest of us. How is it that Nick knows but SKS doesn't?
SKS has been very clear on Labour's Brexit Policy. Boris owns Brexit and everything most be done to ensure even the general public know it's Boris's (and his Government's) fault.
Exactly. Which is good politics and also 100% fair. Johnson was elected specifically 8 months ago to get Brexit done. He promised that if elected he would get it done - and quickly too. Time to deliver now, Mr PM. You have an 80 seat majority. All other parties are irrelevant. Get on with it for heaven's sake.
I like Starmer's style - make sure Corbyn gets saddled with a disastrous mess of a Brexit policy so that he goes down in flames, swoop in as the knightly hero to rebuild the party from the ashes, and then if anyone asks about the EU, just pretend you've barely even heard of it and certainly have no opinions on it whatsoever.
I think he may have a touch of the Johnsons under that inveiglingly bland exterior...
Is this a spoof? If it's true we had better wait for the renaming of Jesus College Oxford and Christ's College Cambridge.
DON'T tell anyone. Today's gospel (Matthew 18, 21-35) has Christ telling the parable of the servant unable to pay a debt to his master. Who orders that the servant "should be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, to meet the debt". The master forgives the debt, which Christ tells us is a Good Thing for the master to have done.
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
Slavery is endemic throughout the Bible, the tenth commandment includes that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours slaves.
More to the point slavery is endemic to the human condition until recently. This includes the entire bible period of say 2000BC to 70 AD. However, at no point does Jesus defend it, he personally identifies with the servant or slave, and St Paul hints towards the future when he says in Galatians "In Christ there is neither slave nor free". It's a great improvement on the efforts of the late Roman republic and early Roman emperors.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
Sensible Tories boggle that their government would trash Britain’s reputation as a trustworthy international partner, wreck our trade and security relations with our closest neighbours and risk the prospects of many existing British businesses so that Number 10’s self-appointed genius can fantasise that he is a cross between Elon Musk, Sergey Brin and Masayoshi Son while splashing taxpayers’ money at any “moonshot” idea that launches off the top of his head. This is a most surreal place for the Conservative party to have got to.
When I put in a call to one senior Tory, our conversation began with him asking: “Covid or Brexit? Which shitshow do you want to talk about?”
There are plenty of skilled diplomats and civil servants working for the British government with the connections and expertise to have spotted how badly this reckless gambit would backfire, but the behaviour of Number 10 deters them from offering candid advice. As one senior Tory puts it: “The climate of fear in Whitehall that they (Johnson and Cummings) have created means that officials do not rush to warn them when they are about to make a mistake.”
This is all true, but at the last election the choice was between this lot and Prime Minister Corbyn. Unless that is taken into account politics won't make sense. Two unappointable people were put up as the only possible PMs. Can anyone suggest what the poor old voter should have done?
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Well I just voted in the cologne local elections. My prediction for the Oberbürgermeister/in is Henrietta Reker (independent but supported by CDU and Greens) will be reelected. Expecting my local Veedel.SPD mayor to be reelected too - good chap called Wirges.
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)
To answer the question of the previous thread, the probability of an EC tie given by the models is 0.475% (538), 0.3975% (Economist). So you'd want something north of 200/1.
Thanks Richard. Trump has had a few half-decent polls in the last 48 hours, including a -5 in a 'National' from Fox. When this has happened before it's invariably been followed by a few strong polls for Biden, so no need for anybody to get excited, but I expect the next price move will be a slight shortening of the Donald's price.
Do we know how this Biden national +5 compares to previous Fox polls?
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Sky mentioned that there was a new handball rule this season. Anyone know what the change is?
It's only handball if it hits below the t-shirt line (why aren't they wearing long sleeves, asked my dad!).
There was a handball given in the Liverpool v Leeds game for above that line.
I thought the rule was defining the shoulder as being not-handball, not anything about t-shirts?
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
The death penalty may become acceptable again.
The Daily Mail, has always had a soft spot for it, and Sun editorials are very enthusiastic if the offence is child, treason or terrorism related.
Johnson doesn't believe in the restoration of capital punishment, but then he didn't really believe in Brexit either.
Lots of people have no problem in principle - there are a good number of people who richly deserve the death penalty after all. It is the practical outworking of it which renders it more or less impossible, both in terms of the vagaries and uncertainties of justice and the mechanics of its operation.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Sky mentioned that there was a new handball rule this season. Anyone know what the change is?
It's only handball if it hits below the t-shirt line (why aren't they wearing long sleeves, asked my dad!).
There was a handball given in the Liverpool v Leeds game for above that line.
I thought the rule was defining the shoulder as being not-handball, not anything about t-shirts?
It's been described as the t-shirt line, but I don't know if there is a more precise measurement.
So all three promoted sides have lost on the opening weekend and have managed to concede three goals each as well.
The Championship = Pub league.
One of those pub teams were very unlucky not to get a point at Anfield. Disgraceful penalty decision for the handball.
Nah, my mate who is a referee says it was the right decision.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
Surely it has to be like the inside edge in cricket - once it deflects that is that because it's impossible for anyone to make a call as to what difference the deflection made.
Sky mentioned that there was a new handball rule this season. Anyone know what the change is?
It's only handball if it hits below the t-shirt line (why aren't they wearing long sleeves, asked my dad!).
There was a handball given in the Liverpool v Leeds game for above that line.
I thought the rule was defining the shoulder as being not-handball, not anything about t-shirts?
It's been described as the t-shirt line, but I don't know if there is a more precise measurement.
It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.
You’ve been commenting on this site for roughly 2750 days. On average you have posted approximately 14.5 comments per day for seven and a half years. Assuming you sleep eight hours and take two hours a day to eat that’s roughly one post per waking hour for three quarters of a decade. Assuming a minute per post, again on average, you’ve spent roughly a solid month of your life on here to the exclusion of everything else just posting. I’m guessing you read all the posts as well so we’re probably talking two or three months of your life in total. That’s dedication. With this post you have sought to both recast the dictionary definition of a “law” and to single handedly remove the need for courts. If you manage either then all that time will have been well worth it.
Comments
Boris Johnson needs to bin the rule of six" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-needs-to-bin-the-rule-of-six
Only automatons could actually not choose to break the law, and humans aren't.
Are you off sick a lot or something?
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1305106650093813762?s=20
Telling someone they must do something does not mean they will do it.
Will they rename North St David Street?
But what about the anti German comment? Was that a similar impulse to the one which sometimes leads to you calling the French "frogs"?
https://twitter.com/libby_brooks/status/1305144483269545985?s=20
The Tour is fantastic, but the Union collapsing before our very eyes is easily the most interesting viewing right now.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
1) The England innings?
2) The start of the Tottenham v. Neverton match?
Michael Vaughan
Ex-England captain on Test Match Special
Any small 30-40-run partnership is going to be absolutely crucial. If England can just muster a partnership and get to the last 10 overs, with five wickets in hand, and be around 170-180.
Trinity Hall founded by the Bishop of Norwich, William Bateman.
Trinity founded by that well known misogynist Henry VIII
But Christ doesn't tell us that slavery is evil (offhand, AFAIK, he never passed a view on the system). On today's logic,that MUST make him complicit.
So expect BLM demos outside every church in the Western world.
The Championship = Pub league.
They let in Richard Burgon.
His arm was well away from his body, plus he wasn't that close to Salah.
If it hadn't hit his body, the trajectory was toward his arm.
I had a tutor who repeated referred to a female student (who from a distant did look rather manly and dressed so) as if she was male! Good job it wasn't today's society, otherwise the short sighted old duffer would be front page news.
If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21
After a shaky start with makeshift defence, Leicester looked pretty good. Praet is very underrated, even by our own fans.
Honest.
I thought the gospel was about the Master who forgave his servant 10,000 talents but the servant would not forgive his slave 100 denarii..
Its a parable because it would have been impossible for a servant to owe a master 10,000 talents and compared to 100 denarii, figuratively speaking,10,000 talents is about equivalent to our national debt!!!
"The point of this parable is clear. Forgiveness lies at the heart of our faith in God and our love of one another. Forgiveness, which we receive from God our King in the person of Jesus is what our King expects from his subjects in their dealings with each other.".. (text is from the www. but my vicar said as much this morning.)
Mill argues that the pain of indefinite incarceration is worse than that of bringing forward the date of inevitable death. He also argues that the terror of capital punishment is greater than the terror of life imprisonment so it is more effective.
So he argues that you get the double win of less pain to the offender with greater deterrence to others. It's also cheaper which might appeal more the way things are going.
. If you predict what utterly trivial thing the beltway media will focus on next you can predict the market movements.
Sensible Tories boggle that their government would trash Britain’s reputation as a trustworthy international partner, wreck our trade and security relations with our closest neighbours and risk the prospects of many existing British businesses so that Number 10’s self-appointed genius can fantasise that he is a cross between Elon Musk, Sergey Brin and Masayoshi Son while splashing taxpayers’ money at any “moonshot” idea that launches off the top of his head. This is a most surreal place for the Conservative party to have got to.
When I put in a call to one senior Tory, our conversation began with him asking: “Covid or Brexit? Which shitshow do you want to talk about?”
There are plenty of skilled diplomats and civil servants working for the British government with the connections and expertise to have spotted how badly this reckless gambit would backfire, but the behaviour of Number 10 deters them from offering candid advice. As one senior Tory puts it: “The climate of fear in Whitehall that they (Johnson and Cummings) have created means that officials do not rush to warn them when they are about to make a mistake.”
There was a handball given in the Liverpool v Leeds game for above that line.
Johnson doesn't believe in the restoration of capital punishment, but then he didn't really believe in Brexit either.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/2020-21-law-changes-explained
No argument is needed. What Ministers say damns them without more.
Show and Tell - my new motto.
I think he may have a touch of the Johnsons under that inveiglingly bland exterior...
Afd will do badly, less than 5%.
Just guesswork haven't seen any opinion polling, and don't think betfair have any markets up. (I think gambling on politics is illegal in Germany anyway)