the cesspit that is the SNP for more than 20 years
You seem to be getting a bit unhinged about this lately. Coming from a Tory it also inspires cogitations upon motes and beams.
I am not a member of the Tory party. And their decision to cancel the exams yesterday really pissed me off.
But even the SNP themselves have acknowledged that some of their keyboard warriors are less than helpful to the cause.
Yep, well keyboard warriors do not a party make, as I'm sure the SCons would be the first to claim when the assorted Union flag shaggers, racists, Trumpers, sectarian bigots and bleach drinkers who tweet support for them are highlighted. Well, the SCons who aren't any of these things anyway.
The SNP is apparently an organisation campaigning for independence. Why knew? 🤷♀️
It certainly induces a weary sense of déjà vu. Since a goodly portion of indy support appears to believe that the SNP are not campaigning for independence, perhaps Union Jack should try the SNP are anti independence line, for variety if nothing else.
I'm just amazed that Ruth never noticed this. I am sure she would have brought it up.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
Why are the French and Germans so paranoid that a post-Brexit UK is going to have such a massive trading advantage over the EU when we are no longer bound by EU regulation?
We know that some regulations have a cost in competitiveness, but are still worth doing. The reason the EU has common standards is because otherwise there's a perverse incentive to try to undercut each other, particularly on health and environmental issues. The same goes for tax - if the ideal rate to maximize welfare is X but you split governance up into competing zones, they'll set it to below X.
A lot of Brexit enthusiasts have been pretty clear that if they can get market access they plan to undercut the EU with lower taxes and regulations. The EU won't grant the market access they want under these conditions, because they're not total and utter idiots.
But the amusing thing is that the main people who are aghast at the idea the UK may gain from lower taxes are the same people who deny the existence of the Laffer Curve.
Anyway they are total and utter idiots if they think they can hold back the tide by making everyone equally uncompetitive. There's a reason much of manufacturing has been exported to the Far East - we operate on a global not local market. The "Single Market" and access to it is more a polite fiction than reality.
You don't insist on everyone in global trade having *equal* standards because people understand that poorer countries will have lower standards than rich ones, and it matters less if the other countries are more distant and more different. But other trade agreements like the TPP also have requirements for environmental and labour standards. It's just not true that there's completely seamless world trade or that there's nothing countries can do to stop themselves being undercut.
So countries like South Korea, Japan etc that we import a lot from have lower standards because they're poorer do they?
Labour and environmental standards in TPP are nothing like the standards required in the EU because the TPP quite rationally as a modern, sane, 21st century trade accord recognises the bulk of that to be issues for national governments not a trade agreement. That is part of what makes the TPP a far superior trade body to the EU going forwards and one I hope the UK joins imminently.
Japan and SK are further away, more different (so less likelihood of being undercut in a market you compete in directly) and have less seamless trade, so it's less important to - say - Germany to align regulatory standards than with France or the UK. However I don't think it's true to say the countries you mention are less regulated than the EU, and Japanese businesses definitely aren't less taxed.
Anyhow where I came in wasn't about how much alignment you want to be operating under, it was somebody wondering why the EU was worried about this. A common theme we see with British people who don't like the EU is that despite arguing about it a lot they don't seem to understand why it exists, which makes their expectations of what it will do very unreliable.
Distance is irrelevant. It is a garbage argument used by pro-Europeans as an excuse to try and get the UK aligned with Europe.
If anyone disagrees with this then please do so using an electronic device made in Europe and not shipped in from a distance away.
Yes closer distance helps with some trade but the principles of trade and competitive advantage span the globe for good reason.
Distance is one of the main determinants of bilateral trade flows, as any trade economist will tell you. The gravity model of trade is extremely powerful. There is a reason why we export more to Ireland than to China...
Export not import, why only look at one of of the equation? Was your phone, tablet or computer you typed that on imported from Ireland or from China? Do we import more from Ireland or China?
Absolutely we may trade more with neighbours but that is irrelevant to competitive advantage being a good thing. That doesn't excuse protectionism.
We import more from China than from Ireland, but imports from Ireland are 60% of those from China, while the Irish economy is 3% of the size of China's. So why do we import 20x more from Ireland than from China, relative to the size of those economies? Because we are neighbours of Ireland, and on the other side of the globe from China. Your argument was that "Distance is irrelevant. It is a garbage argument used by pro-Europeans as an excuse to try and get the UK aligned with Europe." The garbage argument is your claim that distance is an irrelevance.
It is not irrelevant to volumes of trade, it is irrelevant to whether trade is good or bad.
If you believe as I do that competitive advantage is real and a good thing then that applies for your nearest neighbours and furthest partners.
If you believe as Trump does in protectionism then that applies to near neighbours or distanced nations.
Distance shouldn't change principles. There is no reason why distance imports are magically better or worse, safer or more dangerous than near ones.
My point if you read what I wrote was about "principles" not volume.
To be honest I can't even understand what you are trying to argue, but you certainly said that distance was unimportant for trade, which is patently false. Whether trade is "good" or "bad" is a question for a theologian, not an economist.
Bullshit that is not what I said. I said that closer distance helps with trade.
Whether trade is good or bad is absolute an economic question. Or was David Ricardo a theologian?
Go and read your own posts. Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage shows that trade is mutually beneficial, but it abstracts from distributional questions within each country, where to make a judgement about whether opening up to trade that is good for some people but bad for others (eg cheap goods vs factories closing down) is good or bad overall requires some kind of moral judgement about who matters more. Taken literally all trade must be good since it is voluntary exchange and so it wouldn't take place unless both parties were better off. But if that were the end of it we would have global free trade.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
Must say the Indian agricultural reforms had passed me by till WATO today. But then, I'm not PM or an ex-FS. The WATO report seemed to suggest it was far more than Moslems in Punjab who were upset. A large part of Modi's voter base too. PS, was astonished to learn India still has more than half the population employed in agriculture.
IANAE but I don't find the theory that Pakistan might be seeking to stir trouble in the Punjab that far fetched, whatever the merits of the cause.
More than 50% in agriculture? India is so far behind China, its weird.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
You are too smart a person @FrancisUrquhart to not know the answer for that
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
It's an interesting story - on one side you have arguments about unwinding a system that resembles the CAP in some ways: maximise food production by subsidising farmers. On the other you have arguments about the protection of the small farmers vs Big Agriculture, and price controls for food.
Reducing the subsidies will reduce the amount off money being transferred to the Punjab - given the Modi governments sectarianism this would be a plus. That and leaving more money for them to steal....
the cesspit that is the SNP for more than 20 years
You seem to be getting a bit unhinged about this lately. Coming from a Tory it also inspires cogitations upon motes and beams.
I am not a member of the Tory party. And their decision to cancel the exams yesterday really pissed me off.
But even the SNP themselves have acknowledged that some of their keyboard warriors are less than helpful to the cause.
Yep, well keyboard warriors do not a party make, as I'm sure the SCons would be the first to claim when the assorted Union flag shaggers, racists, Trumpers, sectarian bigots and bleach drinkers who tweet support for them are highlighted. Well, the SCons who aren't any of these things anyway.
The SNP is apparently an organisation campaigning for independence. Why knew? 🤷♀️
It certainly induces a weary sense of déjà vu. Since a goodly portion of indy support appears to believe that the SNP are not campaigning for independence, perhaps Union Jack should try the SNP are anti independence line, for variety if nothing else.
I'm just amazed that Ruth never noticed this. I am sure she would have brought it up.
The SCUP would have had to trash its entire branding strategy, not to mention every last bit of bumf for 3 years: "Ruth's Say No to Independence Party", remember? With 'Conservatives' in [edit] the tiniest print.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
That would be the special 'super-slow, super-soft' setting the authorities use when investigating Wokeists.
Why are the French and Germans so paranoid that a post-Brexit UK is going to have such a massive trading advantage over the EU when we are no longer bound by EU regulation?
We know that some regulations have a cost in competitiveness, but are still worth doing. The reason the EU has common standards is because otherwise there's a perverse incentive to try to undercut each other, particularly on health and environmental issues. The same goes for tax - if the ideal rate to maximize welfare is X but you split governance up into competing zones, they'll set it to below X.
A lot of Brexit enthusiasts have been pretty clear that if they can get market access they plan to undercut the EU with lower taxes and regulations. The EU won't grant the market access they want under these conditions, because they're not total and utter idiots.
But the amusing thing is that the main people who are aghast at the idea the UK may gain from lower taxes are the same people who deny the existence of the Laffer Curve.
Anyway they are total and utter idiots if they think they can hold back the tide by making everyone equally uncompetitive. There's a reason much of manufacturing has been exported to the Far East - we operate on a global not local market. The "Single Market" and access to it is more a polite fiction than reality.
You don't insist on everyone in global trade having *equal* standards because people understand that poorer countries will have lower standards than rich ones, and it matters less if the other countries are more distant and more different. But other trade agreements like the TPP also have requirements for environmental and labour standards. It's just not true that there's completely seamless world trade or that there's nothing countries can do to stop themselves being undercut.
So countries like South Korea, Japan etc that we import a lot from have lower standards because they're poorer do they?
Labour and environmental standards in TPP are nothing like the standards required in the EU because the TPP quite rationally as a modern, sane, 21st century trade accord recognises the bulk of that to be issues for national governments not a trade agreement. That is part of what makes the TPP a far superior trade body to the EU going forwards and one I hope the UK joins imminently.
Japan and SK are further away, more different (so less likelihood of being undercut in a market you compete in directly) and have less seamless trade, so it's less important to - say - Germany to align regulatory standards than with France or the UK. However I don't think it's true to say the countries you mention are less regulated than the EU, and Japanese businesses definitely aren't less taxed.
Anyhow where I came in wasn't about how much alignment you want to be operating under, it was somebody wondering why the EU was worried about this. A common theme we see with British people who don't like the EU is that despite arguing about it a lot they don't seem to understand why it exists, which makes their expectations of what it will do very unreliable.
Distance is irrelevant. It is a garbage argument used by pro-Europeans as an excuse to try and get the UK aligned with Europe.
If anyone disagrees with this then please do so using an electronic device made in Europe and not shipped in from a distance away.
Yes closer distance helps with some trade but the principles of trade and competitive advantage span the globe for good reason.
Distance is one of the main determinants of bilateral trade flows, as any trade economist will tell you. The gravity model of trade is extremely powerful. There is a reason why we export more to Ireland than to China...
Export not import, why only look at one of of the equation? Was your phone, tablet or computer you typed that on imported from Ireland or from China? Do we import more from Ireland or China?
Absolutely we may trade more with neighbours but that is irrelevant to competitive advantage being a good thing. That doesn't excuse protectionism.
We import more from China than from Ireland, but imports from Ireland are 60% of those from China, while the Irish economy is 3% of the size of China's. So why do we import 20x more from Ireland than from China, relative to the size of those economies? Because we are neighbours of Ireland, and on the other side of the globe from China. Your argument was that "Distance is irrelevant. It is a garbage argument used by pro-Europeans as an excuse to try and get the UK aligned with Europe." The garbage argument is your claim that distance is an irrelevance.
It is not irrelevant to volumes of trade, it is irrelevant to whether trade is good or bad.
If you believe as I do that competitive advantage is real and a good thing then that applies for your nearest neighbours and furthest partners.
If you believe as Trump does in protectionism then that applies to near neighbours or distanced nations.
Distance shouldn't change principles. There is no reason why distance imports are magically better or worse, safer or more dangerous than near ones.
My point if you read what I wrote was about "principles" not volume.
To be honest I can't even understand what you are trying to argue, but you certainly said that distance was unimportant for trade, which is patently false. Whether trade is "good" or "bad" is a question for a theologian, not an economist.
Bullshit that is not what I said. I said that closer distance helps with trade.
Whether trade is good or bad is absolute an economic question. Or was David Ricardo a theologian?
Go and read your own posts. Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage shows that trade is mutually beneficial, but it abstracts from distributional questions within each country, where to make a judgement about whether opening up to trade that is good for some people but bad for others (eg cheap goods vs factories closing down) is good or bad overall requires some kind of moral judgement about who matters more. Taken literally all trade must be good since it is voluntary exchange and so it wouldn't take place unless both parties were better off. But if that were the end of it we would have global free trade.
Yes my own post explicitly said that closer distance helps with trade, but it doesn't change the principles of competitive advantage. So you responding by saying that closer distance means more trade doesn't counter any of what I wrote since it literally said the same thing I had literally written. 🤦🏻♂️
Yes absolutely we should have global free trade. That's why we should leave behind protectionist statist trading blocs that are a 1950s answer to a 1930s problem and embrace global free trade instead. On that I agree absolutely, hence all the talk of global Britain did you miss that?
But you've not given any rational reason why it is a good idea for to have a free trade agreement with eg Canada but not the UK. Competitive advantage works for both, but the gravity means that the advantages they get for trading with Canada are multiplied with the UK. Since presumably they found the Canadian deal worthwhile a UK one ought to be even more so.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
It's an interesting story - on one side you have arguments about unwinding a system that resembles the CAP in some ways: maximise food production by subsidising farmers. On the other you have arguments about the protection of the small farmers vs Big Agriculture, and price controls for food.
Reducing the subsidies will reduce the amount off money being transferred to the Punjab - given the Modi governments sectarianism this would be a plus. That and leaving more money for them to steal....
AIUI, they are removing the State run middleman with guaranteed prices, and allowing direct sales. This will have effects nationwide. Although disproportionately in the Punjab. And, yes, Pakistan will do all it can to stir the pot, of course. Long term India needs fewer in farming, and more in schools, if it wants to move forward any more.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
Must say the Indian agricultural reforms had passed me by till WATO today. But then, I'm not PM or an ex-FS. The WATO report seemed to suggest it was far more than Moslems in Punjab who were upset. A large part of Modi's voter base too. PS, was astonished to learn India still has more than half the population employed in agriculture.
They're not Muslims. The turbans are a bit of a clue.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
Yebbut you said 'night'. And pishing next to a MEMORIAL in broad daylight is not like pishing in someone's wally close on the way home from the pubs in the Cowgate or Bigg Market. (Though I do agree he was hard done by.)
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
I've taken a whizz against a wall plenty of times in my life. That's a ridiculous notion.
It's not like he was waving his todger in somebodies face.
The coronavirus situation in Wales is "very difficult" but not out of control, according to the country's first minister. Mark Drakeford defended his government's decision to have a short lockdown of 17 days in the autumn. It comes as Wales' top doctor says ministers are considering whether new measures might be needed before Christmas.
I would hate to see what the numbers would be accelerating like if it wasn't out of control. The worst thing about his approach is that yet again he has boxed himself in by saying absolutely no to any new restrictions until after Christmas. So another month of inaction.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
The coronavirus situation in Wales is "very difficult" but not out of control, according to the country's first minister. Mark Drakeford defended his government's decision to have a short lockdown of 17 days in the autumn. It comes as Wales' top doctor says ministers are considering whether new measures might be needed before Christmas.
I would hate to see what the numbers would be accelerating like if it wasn't out of control. The worst thing about his approach is that yet again he has boxed himself in by saying absolutely no to any new restrictions until after Christmas. So another month of inaction.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial months.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
Yebbut you said 'night'. And pishing next to a MEMORIAL in broad daylight is not like pishing in someone's wally close on the way home from the pubs in the Cowgate or Bigg Market. (Though I do agree he was hard done by.)
It wasn't so much he was hard done by (although IMO prison seemed over the top and surely the sort of moronic crime that some community work would be a great idea for), but the contrast against statue topplers and those attacking the cenotaph, who got no real punishment at all.
One was a guy who is a moron, doing something moronic, but no actual damage to anything. And he handed himself in the next morning. The others damaging public property and had to be tracked down.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
Must say the Indian agricultural reforms had passed me by till WATO today. But then, I'm not PM or an ex-FS. The WATO report seemed to suggest it was far more than Moslems in Punjab who were upset. A large part of Modi's voter base too. PS, was astonished to learn India still has more than half the population employed in agriculture.
They're not Muslims. The turbans are a bit of a clue.
I wasn't the one suggesting they were. That would be the PM. Who when asked about it withered on about Pakistan. Edit. Withered is autocorrect. But I like it.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
Yebbut you said 'night'. And pishing next to a MEMORIAL in broad daylight is not like pishing in someone's wally close on the way home from the pubs in the Cowgate or Bigg Market. (Though I do agree he was hard done by.)
It wasn't so much he was hard done by (although IMO prison seemed over the top and surely the sort of moronic crime that some community work would be a great idea for), but the contrast against statue topplers and those attacking the cenotaph, who got no real punishment at all.
One was a guy who is a moron, doing something moronic, but no actual damage to anything. And he handed himself in the next morning. The others damaging public property and had to be tracked down.
Are Sky going to have any correspondents left by the end of the day?
Death Rigby getting herself suspended, has done us all a favour, it nearly makes Sky News watchable. I wonder what far flung corner of the globe she is going on to go on a jolly to in the meantime?
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
Well, in fairness we are talking about the Punjab, about Muslim farmers, a very Hindu dominated government and religious tensions. It would be a bit naive to think that the relationship between Pakistan and India was irrelevant to that or indeed our interest in the matter given that both sides are nuclear powers.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.
Which war memorial are you talking about?
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
Perhaps Pennsylvania may raise a case against Texas!!!! Looks like the Civil war all over again. United States, someone is having a laugh. After their curt dismissive "decision" over the Penn case yesterday it is hard seeing this going anywhere but you never know. We struggle on towards the 14th and the Electoral College. Is there no-one in the States to grasp the nettle and just elect the President on a national popular vote.
God I hope that some no mark minion put this out in his name to bolster his man of the people image. He surely has at least 1 more important matter to focus on.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.
I thought that was just to give us all a good laugh and OGH a replacement for the Corbyn photo in his evening finery. Are you suggesting he was serious?
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.
Which war memorial are you talking about?
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
Yes, it is looking bad again here. Inpatient numbers over 200 again after dropping to 170 or so last week, and we haven't seen the effect of unlocking yet.
Trust management have halted admissions for planned surgery, except daycases, and I saw an eye watering figure of 40% of respiratory unit staff off at present, gaps filled by the press-gang actively recruiting specialists from other areas. December is going to be grim.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
The coronavirus situation in Wales is "very difficult" but not out of control, according to the country's first minister. Mark Drakeford defended his government's decision to have a short lockdown of 17 days in the autumn. It comes as Wales' top doctor says ministers are considering whether new measures might be needed before Christmas.
I would hate to see what the numbers would be accelerating like if it wasn't out of control. The worst thing about his approach is that yet again he has boxed himself in by saying absolutely no to any new restrictions until after Christmas. So another month of inaction.
Yep, currently rising at a rate of 50% week-over-week, which translates to a doubling time of 12 days.
They do have the measures modelled on Scottish level 3 that came in last Friday, which should stabilize the numbers from early next week. But they'll probably be well above 400/week/100,000 by then, and they need to do more to actually bring them down.
Anyone in Welsh Labour who could shove Drakeford out of the way and try to get a handle on things?
There is a difference between permitted and should. Many, including my family, will not gather this Christmas because it is not sensible to do so. Others may choose to take a different decision. The question is whether they should (a) be advised not to be so silly and (b) fined for being so silly (assuming the cops show any interest whatsoever).
My choices are yes and no to those options. But it is not going to change our behaviour.
Did he actually say that? Everyone knows it is a balance between allowing people to do stuff and keeping the virus down. If the sole objective of the government was to eliminate the virus they would lock everyone in their homes until the last person had been vaccinated.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
No doubt stirred up by the media's incessant whining about "saving Christmas".
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.
Which war memorial are you talking about?
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
Thanks, Charlie Gilmour must have been pissed off about that.
Ah yes. The chap who demonstrated that a defence that consisted of
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was 2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
There is a difference between permitted and should. Many, including my family, will not gather this Christmas because it is not sensible to do so. Others may choose to take a different decision. The question is whether they should (a) be advised not to be so silly and (b) fined for being so silly (assuming the cops show any interest whatsoever).
My choices are yes and no to those options. But it is not going to change our behaviour.
I'm inclined to say that the relaxations should be cancelled (because the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago yada yada...) to make it clear that this isn't something you should be doing, since the lockdown hasn't brought cases down enough. You don't have to ramraid Christmas lunch but any deterrent to stop people from gathering is probably needed. It's the reason I think that the SG was absolutely correct not to move Edinburgh down a tier (despite the gnashing of teeth). Christmas is fucking coming. Take cover.
There is a difference between permitted and should. Many, including my family, will not gather this Christmas because it is not sensible to do so. Others may choose to take a different decision. The question is whether they should (a) be advised not to be so silly and (b) fined for being so silly (assuming the cops show any interest whatsoever).
My choices are yes and no to those options. But it is not going to change our behaviour.
I'm inclined to say that the relaxations should be cancelled (because the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago yada yada...) to make it clear that this isn't something you should be doing, since the lockdown hasn't brought cases down enough. You don't have to ramraid Christmas lunch but any deterrent to stop people from gathering is probably needed. It's the reason I think that the SG was absolutely correct not to move Edinburgh down a tier (despite the gnashing of teeth). Christmas is fucking coming. Take cover.
I would have from the start gone with Christmas day is ok, rule of 6 (plus kids). That's your lot folks. Sure people would still do Boxing day, have 8 etc. But the current plan is far too long, far too relaxed.
Did he actually say that? Everyone knows it is a balance between allowing people to do stuff and keeping the virus down. If the sole objective of the government was to eliminate the virus they would lock everyone in their homes until the last person had been vaccinated.
Perhaps the PM should be making clear that people should be safe during this time by saying it is the season to be jolly careful?
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.
Which war memorial are you talking about?
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
Thanks, Charlie Gilmour must have been pissed off about that.
Ah yes. The chap who demonstrated that a defence that consisted of
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was 2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
doesn't result in favourable outcome. Funny that.
He didn't go to one of the proper Cambridge colleges, he went to one of the JCL colleges.
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.
That could be fudged over with an implementation period of a few months if both sides were so inclined.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
Drakeford was eloquent on that point.
The relaxation planned over Christmas pales in comparison to the relaxation that occurred after the firebreak in Wales. What was it, groups of 15 allowed to mingle?
There is a difference between permitted and should. Many, including my family, will not gather this Christmas because it is not sensible to do so. Others may choose to take a different decision. The question is whether they should (a) be advised not to be so silly and (b) fined for being so silly (assuming the cops show any interest whatsoever).
My choices are yes and no to those options. But it is not going to change our behaviour.
Yes, a lot of people I know are not taking advantage of the relaxation of the rules because they think it's too risky. So maybe the spike won't be as bad as feared.
As for me, my son and his wife are getting tested and then self-isolating until they get the results. Only if negative will they come to see me - and even then there will just be the three of us.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.
That could be fudged over with an implementation period of a few months if both sides were so inclined.
I do wonder if there might be a little "paperwork holiday" for January whatever happens just to keep the lorries moving, but the issue is that there will always have to be a point where you impose your rules and that's where the crunch will happen. Because people are lazy and paperwork is hard.
There is a difference between permitted and should. Many, including my family, will not gather this Christmas because it is not sensible to do so. Others may choose to take a different decision. The question is whether they should (a) be advised not to be so silly and (b) fined for being so silly (assuming the cops show any interest whatsoever).
My choices are yes and no to those options. But it is not going to change our behaviour.
Very well put.
A large number of people will grasp at any justification they can find for having a big family Christmas. Because it is vital to them.
For myself (and my immediate family), not killing all the old people seems a good Christmas present for them. Plus all the wrinkles in my family are quite either scientific or risk averse. They are staying in the bunker until 3 weeks after the second jab (and a confirmatory antibody test, according to a couple) and that's that....
I wonder if there's anyone who falls for the mad spin that "gravity" means a more onerous LPF is required for the UK considers the same in reverse?
The EU's minimum wage is €1.95 per hour - less than a fifth of the UK's minimum wage. Does "gravity" mean the UK should not sign a trade deal with the EU for as long as we are being undercut on this?
I doubt there's even a single Europhile here who will make that argument despite parroting the spin in reverse. Which is because it is nonsense all of it.
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.
Which war memorial are you talking about?
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
Thanks, Charlie Gilmour must have been pissed off about that.
Ah yes. The chap who demonstrated that a defence that consisted of
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was 2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
doesn't result in favourable outcome. Funny that.
Charlie Gilmour is a more interesting lad than the gnashing of Mail readers' teeth suggests, he seems to have pulled his life around (hopefully). I think I'll get his memoir for one of my pal's Chritsmas.
'Featherhood by Charlie Gilmour review: Cenotaphs, magpies and missing fathers'
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.
That could be fudged over with an implementation period of a few months if both sides were so inclined.
Question to which I don't know the answer, and would love to know what knowledgeable types here think.
In the event that a Deal happens, and it lands where it seems likely to land...
How much implementation time would the UK need to get about as reasonably ready as it's ever going to be?
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."
I wonder if there's anyone who falls for the mad spin that "gravity" means a more onerous LPF is required for the UK considers the same in reverse?
The EU's minimum wage is €1.95 per hour - less than a fifth of the UK's minimum wage. Does "gravity" mean the UK should not sign a trade deal with the EU for as long as we are being undercut on this?
No - the EU should sanction itself until their minimum wage rises to the UK level.
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.
That could be fudged over with an implementation period of a few months if both sides were so inclined.
I do wonder if there might be a little "paperwork holiday" for January whatever happens just to keep the lorries moving, but the issue is that there will always have to be a point where you impose your rules and that's where the crunch will happen. Because people are lazy and paperwork is hard.
A lot depends on whether there is an amicable deal or not, almost irrespective of the formal scope of the agreement. If there is a deal, then our EU friends are likely to be much more helpful in smoothing things along. If not...
I think that the government also has to be realistic. At the moment we are at pretty high levels of restrictions and it is just not working. The R rate is going up. Its not working because more and more people are just not complying, whatever the level of restriction.
The vaccine is not here a day too soon and too late for some, sadly.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.
Oh I'd agree with that which is why I think Cruz has got something to do with it (and with his comment he would have presented the PA case to SCOTUS).
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.
Which war memorial are you talking about?
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
Thanks, Charlie Gilmour must have been pissed off about that.
Ah yes. The chap who demonstrated that a defence that consisted of
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was 2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
doesn't result in favourable outcome. Funny that.
He didn't go to one of the proper Cambridge colleges, he went to one of the JCL colleges.
One that wasn't even a proper college until 1948!
Oi! We were (and I trust, still are) highly proper. And gave the world Lady Hale, never forget.
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decision
Sturgeon clearly fucking hated it but looks like she was bounced into it because the others all thought it was grand and (despite what some posters here think) she realises the optics of stopping cars full of kids and pressies at Gretna are not good. The Scottish Regs are tighter than the English ones and the message from the SG briefings has been "don't".
I wonder if there's anyone who falls for the mad spin that "gravity" means a more onerous LPF is required for the UK considers the same in reverse?
The EU's minimum wage is €1.95 per hour - less than a fifth of the UK's minimum wage. Does "gravity" mean the UK should not sign a trade deal with the EU for as long as we are being undercut on this?
I doubt there's even a single Europhile here who will make that argument despite parroting the spin in reverse. Which is because it is nonsense all of it.
Are you moaning again that the the EU are being "unreasonable"?
It doesn't matter - it is what it is. Being a "europhile" has nothing to do with it.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decision
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.
Yes, it is looking bad again here. Inpatient numbers over 200 again after dropping to 170 or so last week, and we haven't seen the effect of unlocking yet.
Trust management have halted admissions for planned surgery, except daycases, and I saw an eye watering figure of 40% of respiratory unit staff off at present, gaps filled by the press-gang actively recruiting specialists from other areas. December is going to be grim.
I fear January/February is going to redefine "grim".
Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.
That could be fudged over with an implementation period of a few months if both sides were so inclined.
I do wonder if there might be a little "paperwork holiday" for January whatever happens just to keep the lorries moving, but the issue is that there will always have to be a point where you impose your rules and that's where the crunch will happen. Because people are lazy and paperwork is hard.
A lot depends on whether there is an amicable deal or not, almost irrespective of the formal scope of the agreement. If there is a deal, then our EU friends are likely to be much more helpful in smoothing things along. If not...
I think it goes further than that. An amicable "no-deal" is now possible thanks to Gove actually being competent when asked to do something technical. If Johnson resists the temptation to Eurobash in the event of no agreement being reached then I think the EU would be willing to a) leave the door open for future talks and b) try to mitigate against the worst disruption come January.
However, this is Boris Johnson we're talking about here.
The government should change its advice and strongly advise against households mixing over Christmas, while making sure that nobody is alone who doesn't choose to be. Otherwise there's bound to be a lot of extra deaths in Jan/Feb. Of course such advice is not enforceable, but if, say, an extra 20% chose not to mingle because of it, that would make a significant difference. Such advice would also help those of us who are torn within families, with one party saying "It's allowed, let's do it", and the other "I don't think it's wise, let's not". Government advice against would help the latter to win the argument. Anyway, it's wishful thinking, because Brexit Chapter xxxx is this week's agenda.
I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-55248263
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage shows that trade is mutually beneficial, but it abstracts from distributional questions within each country, where to make a judgement about whether opening up to trade that is good for some people but bad for others (eg cheap goods vs factories closing down) is good or bad overall requires some kind of moral judgement about who matters more. Taken literally all trade must be good since it is voluntary exchange and so it wouldn't take place unless both parties were better off. But if that were the end of it we would have global free trade.
More than 50% in agriculture? India is so far behind China, its weird.
England 12,960
NI 483
Scotland 897
Wales 2,238
Reducing the subsidies will reduce the amount off money being transferred to the Punjab - given the Modi governments sectarianism this would be a plus. That and leaving more money for them to steal....
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
Yes absolutely we should have global free trade. That's why we should leave behind protectionist statist trading blocs that are a 1950s answer to a 1930s problem and embrace global free trade instead. On that I agree absolutely, hence all the talk of global Britain did you miss that?
But you've not given any rational reason why it is a good idea for to have a free trade agreement with eg Canada but not the UK. Competitive advantage works for both, but the gravity means that the advantages they get for trading with Canada are multiplied with the UK. Since presumably they found the Canadian deal worthwhile a UK one ought to be even more so.
And, yes, Pakistan will do all it can to stir the pot, of course.
Long term India needs fewer in farming, and more in schools, if it wants to move forward any more.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
It's not like he was waving his todger in somebodies face.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-55245053
I would hate to see what the numbers would be accelerating like if it wasn't out of control. The worst thing about his approach is that yet again he has boxed himself in by saying absolutely no to any new restrictions until after Christmas. So another month of inaction.
BBC: "Tesco: Brexit 'could see people choose cheddar over brie'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55246703
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/seven-months-in-jail-for-kelly-martin-woman-who-twice-urinated-on-war-memorial
One was a guy who is a moron, doing something moronic, but no actual damage to anything. And he handed himself in the next morning. The others damaging public property and had to be tracked down.
It's brought up so many disturbing search results.
That would be the PM. Who when asked about it withered on about Pakistan.
Edit. Withered is autocorrect. But I like it.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/03/protester-19-who-tried-to-set-union-flag-alight-on-cenotaph-avoids-jail-13696832
Also, unlike pissy man,
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014643/Black-Lives-Matter-activist-tried-torch-Union-Flag-let-off.html
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.
From case data
From hospital data
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
Looks like the Civil war all over again. United States, someone is having a laugh.
After their curt dismissive "decision" over the Penn case yesterday it is hard seeing this going anywhere but you never know.
We struggle on towards the 14th and the Electoral College.
Is there no-one in the States to grasp the nettle and just elect the President on a national popular vote.
Between the vaccinations and everyone in tier 3/a "lockdown"
Trust management have halted admissions for planned surgery, except daycases, and I saw an eye watering figure of 40% of respiratory unit staff off at present, gaps filled by the press-gang actively recruiting specialists from other areas. December is going to be grim.
They do have the measures modelled on Scottish level 3 that came in last Friday, which should stabilize the numbers from early next week. But they'll probably be well above 400/week/100,000 by then, and they need to do more to actually bring them down.
Anyone in Welsh Labour who could shove Drakeford out of the way and try to get a handle on things?
My choices are yes and no to those options. But it is not going to change our behaviour.
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was
2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
doesn't result in favourable outcome. Funny that.
One that wasn't even a proper college until 1948!
I also note that the hospital funnel now as more people being added than are exiting which means the R is above 1, significantly so in some areas.
As for me, my son and his wife are getting tested and then self-isolating until they get the results. Only if negative will they come to see me - and even then there will just be the three of us.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
A large number of people will grasp at any justification they can find for having a big family Christmas. Because it is vital to them.
For myself (and my immediate family), not killing all the old people seems a good Christmas present for them. Plus all the wrinkles in my family are quite either scientific or risk averse. They are staying in the bunker until 3 weeks after the second jab (and a confirmatory antibody test, according to a couple) and that's that....
The EU's minimum wage is €1.95 per hour - less than a fifth of the UK's minimum wage. Does "gravity" mean the UK should not sign a trade deal with the EU for as long as we are being undercut on this?
I doubt there's even a single Europhile here who will make that argument despite parroting the spin in reverse. Which is because it is nonsense all of it.
'Featherhood by Charlie Gilmour review: Cenotaphs, magpies and missing fathers'
https://tinyurl.com/yydljlhs
In the event that a Deal happens, and it lands where it seems likely to land...
How much implementation time would the UK need to get about as reasonably ready as it's ever going to be?
It was very much Mr Johnson and his team who were pandering to the Christmas nonsense and perhaps even feeding it by their briefings. Damned idiots.
The vaccine is not here a day too soon and too late for some, sadly.
Not technically in Cambridge, I'll grant you...
It doesn't matter - it is what it is. Being a "europhile" has nothing to do with it.
However, this is Boris Johnson we're talking about here.
Of course such advice is not enforceable, but if, say, an extra 20% chose not to mingle because of it, that would make a significant difference.
Such advice would also help those of us who are torn within families, with one party saying "It's allowed, let's do it", and the other "I don't think it's wise, let's not". Government advice against would help the latter to win the argument.
Anyway, it's wishful thinking, because Brexit Chapter xxxx is this week's agenda.