If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.
We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.
I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?
The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.
I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
On the other hand, isn't it security against a coup from within the Executive (eg. DoD)? I'm not sure anyone in the Senate has a role do they? I thought it was just the Speaker.
Then again it encourages a coup from the House. Swings and roundabouts.
Senate Pro Tem is next after House Speaker.
Would be useful if the Supreme Court could settle the eligibility question before the situation ever arises.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
VP takes command immediately, and Congress can drag its feet on the votes for 21 days.
It almost certainly won't happen (I think Pence is deliberately keeping it on the table as a tactic to try to keep Trump in line, but really doesn't want to use it).
However, it would be pretty dramatic if it was invoked and Trump contested it (there's only a vote if he contests in writing). I'm not sure Republicans would be able to drag it out, certainly in the House. I think it would just be too tempting for Democrats to force Republican colleagues to choose between Pence and Trump.
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.
I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to. The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
When? When did I say that?
I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.
Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.
Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
"the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium" is meaningless, because it is what always happens. If I put you out of business, your customers will obtain from others what they used to get from you, so what is your problem?
If I go out of business that is bad for me, but the market continues, yes.
If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.
We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.
I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?
The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.
I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
The reason the Speaker and President Pro Tem are next in line after the Veep is that they have been elected by the people of their district/state and by a majority of their chamber thus representing the electorate as a whole, and the Secretaries are appointed. Personally I’d replace President Pro Tem with Senate Majority Leader as by custom the Senate always elects what in UK terms would be the “father of the house” to the role as it’s purely ceremonial.
Seniority is incredibly important in the US. I saw some speculation earlier on Republicans going independent/switching parties, and it was pointed out that doing that would cost them all their eg. seniority committee benefits.
Is that correct? Richard Shelby (Alabama) is fourth in seniority and that's unaffected by him switching party in 1994.
I can see it may affect committee assignments (as these are distributed by parties to members) but not seniority within the Senate or on the committee the (new) party put them on.
There are some very similar moves by the EU and by national governments in Europe and elsewhere.
The decisions on Trump by social media companies (and Apple, Google etc as hosts) need to be seen in this context. Now is a very bad time to appear weak and unconcerned if you're one of these companies - they are certainly moving into a more regulated sphere across the developed world (they get that), but they are scrambling to manage the costs and the risk from fines etc so "we can be trusted to self-regulate to some degree" is a far more important message to get across than it has been at any time in the past.
Poland has actually passed a law that fines social media companies every time they ban a post that is deemed as lawful and, as you said, I am sure others will follow. It's just going to be interesting what Modi and Bolsinaro do, both of whom get accused of being mini-Trumps because they may just decide to take pre-emptive action against the giants before they get banned themselves.
The problem with the tech companies self-regulating is that they are generally awful at doing so. Saying ban Trump but then allowing the Iranians to spew out hatred towards Israel from official accounts just looks optically very bad (and is bad).
Well I have to say I admire your courage in continuing to post. When even Arnie thinks you Trump worshippers are Sid and Doris it really must be time for a bit of self analysis.
54,940 cases. Still trending up in England, but that could be primarily due to cases in Christmas level 2 areas like Liverpool still shooting up. Trending down very slowly in Scotland and Wales, bit more in NI. London still looking no better than stable.
The worry is that all this reflects the quiet time between Christmas and last weekend, and that more people going back to work or school could reignite it again. And of course the case levels are too high anyway.
If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.
We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.
I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?
The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.
I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
The reason the Speaker and President Pro Tem are next in line after the Veep is that they have been elected by the people of their district/state and by a majority of their chamber thus representing the electorate as a whole, and the Secretaries are appointed. Personally I’d replace President Pro Tem with Senate Majority Leader as by custom the Senate always elects what in UK terms would be the “father of the house” to the role as it’s purely ceremonial.
Seniority is incredibly important in the US. I saw some speculation earlier on Republicans going independent/switching parties, and it was pointed out that doing that would cost them all their eg. seniority committee benefits.
Is that correct? Richard Shelby (Alabama) is fourth in seniority and that's unaffected by him switching party in 1994.
I can see it may affect committee assignments (as these are distributed by parties to members) but not seniority within the Senate or on the committee the (new) party put them on.
To be honest i only read it in passing. So could be completely wrong, or misunderstood it slightly.
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.
I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to. The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
When? When did I say that?
I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.
Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.
Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
"the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium" is meaningless, because it is what always happens. If I put you out of business, your customers will obtain from others what they used to get from you, so what is your problem?
If I go out of business that is bad for me, but the market continues, yes.
So all you are saying is, life goes on, which it always does anyway. So it's meaningless.
I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.
Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.
Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.
Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.
There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.
The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
VP takes command immediately, and Congress can drag its feet on the votes for 21 days.
It almost certainly won't happen (I think Pence is deliberately keeping it on the table as a tactic to try to keep Trump in line, but really doesn't want to use it).
However, it would be pretty dramatic if it was invoked and Trump contested it (there's only a vote if he contests in writing). I'm not sure Republicans would be able to drag it out, certainly in the House. I think it would just be too tempting for Democrats to force Republican colleagues to choose between Pence and Trump.
Reading the relevant relevant text again, I'm not actually sure there's any early way back for the President if the VP insists. Sounds like Congress can confirm the VP in the job at any time in the 21 days, but the President only gets back in once the 21 days are over. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.
I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.
My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
54,940 cases. Still trending up in England, but that could be primarily due to cases in Christmas level 2 areas like Liverpool still shooting up. Trending down very slowly in Scotland and Wales, bit more in NI. London still looking no better than stable.
The worry is that all this reflects the quiet time between Christmas and last weekend, and that more people going back to work or school could reignite it again. And of course the case levels are too high anyway.
We are in Weekend Effect - we come out of that on Tuesday.
54,940 cases. Still trending up in England, but that could be primarily due to cases in Christmas level 2 areas like Liverpool still shooting up. Trending down very slowly in Scotland and Wales, bit more in NI. London still looking no better than stable.
The worry is that all this reflects the quiet time between Christmas and last weekend, and that more people going back to work or school could reignite it again. And of course the case levels are too high anyway.
We are in Weekend Effect - we come out of that on Tuesday.
It's 7-day averages to take out the weekend effect. I realise there's also still the Christmas effect to contend with.
Nonje of the networks have to carry the words of the clearly unhinged President. However they can't really prevent Newsmax and OANN from doing so without infringing his first amendment rights in my view.
On another topic - Is it one rule for walkers in Derbyshire and another for football supporters on Merseyside ?
54,940 cases. Still trending up in England, but that could be primarily due to cases in Christmas level 2 areas like Liverpool still shooting up. Trending down very slowly in Scotland and Wales, bit more in NI. London still looking no better than stable.
The worry is that all this reflects the quiet time between Christmas and last weekend, and that more people going back to work or school could reignite it again. And of course the case levels are too high anyway.
We are in Weekend Effect - we come out of that on Tuesday.
It's 7-day averages to take out the weekend effect. I realise there's also still the Christmas effect to contend with.
Also, unlike reported deaths, there is very little weekend effect on reported cases. The lowest reported figure so far this year, for example, was 52,618 on 7 January, which was a Thursday.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
VP takes command immediately, and Congress can drag its feet on the votes for 21 days.
It almost certainly won't happen (I think Pence is deliberately keeping it on the table as a tactic to try to keep Trump in line, but really doesn't want to use it).
However, it would be pretty dramatic if it was invoked and Trump contested it (there's only a vote if he contests in writing). I'm not sure Republicans would be able to drag it out, certainly in the House. I think it would just be too tempting for Democrats to force Republican colleagues to choose between Pence and Trump.
Reading the relevant relevant text again, I'm not actually sure there's any early way back for the President if the VP insists. Sounds like Congress can confirm the VP in the job at any time in the 21 days, but the President only gets back in once the 21 days are over. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
I don't share your reading of that. If there is a dispute between the President and Acting President on whether the President had capacity, the President would resume immediately that Congress held the vote (unless the Acting President won with a 2/3rds majority). So there would, in theory, be time for the 25th to be invoked and Trump to resume his duties.
I see your reasoning that they could vote repeatedly within the 21 days and only at the end of the 21 days would it be clear there wasn't a 2/3rds majority. But I don't think it would be interpreted that way and, once there has been a vote lacking the required majority the President would resume.
Note that there may not be a vote at all - it's only if the President disputes it. It's never been used but I suspect if it was in future it would be because the President had suffered a serious stroke or similar and was unable to formally resign. He'd therefore not submit an objection and the VP would be Acting President indefinitely with no vote.
I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.
Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.
Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.
Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.
There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.
The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.
I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.
It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.
Do you really have to post that sort of vile crap here? (Referring to the Parler post not the tweet per se)
There are people out there right now, who will decide the fate of the President, who would like to pretend there is nothing that need doing other than ignoring things in order to 'move on'. It's worth reminding ourselves that, even as a tiny minority, there's some real dark shit out there. And that some of those powerful people support and defend it, by effect even if not in intent.
I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.
Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.
Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.
Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.
There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.
The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.
I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.
IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.
These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
Given how many House republicans, up for election so much sooner than most Senators, still pursued the nonsense EC objections, I wonder how many, or rather how few, will join in any impeachment vote.
But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.
I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.
My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to. This is all their own fault.
Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.
I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to. The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
When? When did I say that?
I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.
Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.
Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.
I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
Nonje of the networks have to carry the words of the clearly unhinged President. However they can't really prevent Newsmax and OANN from doing so without infringing his first amendment rights in my view.
On another topic - Is it one rule for walkers in Derbyshire and another for football supporters on Merseyside ?
I have just had a vision of, a few years from now, Donald Trump hosting a "Waynes World" type show on US Public Access TV.
If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.
We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.
I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?
The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.
I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
VP takes command immediately, and Congress can drag its feet on the votes for 21 days.
It almost certainly won't happen (I think Pence is deliberately keeping it on the table as a tactic to try to keep Trump in line, but really doesn't want to use it).
However, it would be pretty dramatic if it was invoked and Trump contested it (there's only a vote if he contests in writing). I'm not sure Republicans would be able to drag it out, certainly in the House. I think it would just be too tempting for Democrats to force Republican colleagues to choose between Pence and Trump.
Reading the relevant relevant text again, I'm not actually sure there's any early way back for the President if the VP insists. Sounds like Congress can confirm the VP in the job at any time in the 21 days, but the President only gets back in once the 21 days are over. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
I don't share your reading of that. If there is a dispute between the President and Acting President on whether the President had capacity, the President would resume immediately that Congress held the vote (unless the Acting President won with a 2/3rds majority). So there would, in theory, be time for the 25th to be invoked and Trump to resume his duties.
I see your reasoning that they could vote repeatedly within the 21 days and only at the end of the 21 days would it be clear there wasn't a 2/3rds majority. But I don't think it would be interpreted that way and, once there has been a vote lacking the required majority the President would resume.
Note that there may not be a vote at all - it's only if the President disputes it. It's never been used but I suspect if it was in future it would be because the President had suffered a serious stroke or similar and was unable to formally resign. He'd therefore not submit an objection and the VP would be Acting President indefinitely with no vote.
I agree it could be interpreted that way as well. Arguably then the President could get back in with a third of the vote in one of the chambers even if the other doesn't vote (e.g. because the current House Speaker refuses to put it to a vote).
Delightfully ambiguous. And that text doesn't even have the excuse of being 200 years old. But as you say, it wasn't really intended for the current situation.
But interesting to see the repositioning. I mean, even without last week, Trump was on his way to becoming a much diminished figure from 20th so it is not a shock at all that more people would be jumping off the Trump Train than onto it.
However, Christie is still very much involved in Republican politics and, although he was never a swivel-eyed true-believer, he had thought carefully about the weather in the GOP and positioned himself close to Trump. He plainly sees zero value in that now. He's betting that Trump is finished and there is no value (and much danger) in continued association.
Well I suppose you could interpret “sickness and self-isolation” as referring to Brexit.
My guess is it’s Covid that’s causing the issues at food processors.
For around ten months I have been eagerly anticipating the first post on PB that shrouds Brexit chaos with the cloak of Covid, and bingo, there it was.
But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.
I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.
My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
I've used both lines in speeches/reports.
You are talking about the guy who began a work report and a PB thread header with the line
'Never trust anyone who can spell gonorrhoea correctly on the first attempt.'
It's a great way to get the attention of your audience.
I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.
It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.
It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.
For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
I'm hoping there is a reporting artifact but the day=of-death figures are fairly terrifying for England with the jump on the 4th 1st Jan - 554 2nd Jan - 581 3rd Jan - 568 4th Jan - 695 5th Jan - 685 6th Jan - 680
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.
So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?
One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
VP takes command immediately, and Congress can drag its feet on the votes for 21 days.
It almost certainly won't happen (I think Pence is deliberately keeping it on the table as a tactic to try to keep Trump in line, but really doesn't want to use it).
However, it would be pretty dramatic if it was invoked and Trump contested it (there's only a vote if he contests in writing). I'm not sure Republicans would be able to drag it out, certainly in the House. I think it would just be too tempting for Democrats to force Republican colleagues to choose between Pence and Trump.
Reading the relevant relevant text again, I'm not actually sure there's any early way back for the President if the VP insists. Sounds like Congress can confirm the VP in the job at any time in the 21 days, but the President only gets back in once the 21 days are over. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
I don't share your reading of that. If there is a dispute between the President and Acting President on whether the President had capacity, the President would resume immediately that Congress held the vote (unless the Acting President won with a 2/3rds majority). So there would, in theory, be time for the 25th to be invoked and Trump to resume his duties.
I see your reasoning that they could vote repeatedly within the 21 days and only at the end of the 21 days would it be clear there wasn't a 2/3rds majority. But I don't think it would be interpreted that way and, once there has been a vote lacking the required majority the President would resume.
Note that there may not be a vote at all - it's only if the President disputes it. It's never been used but I suspect if it was in future it would be because the President had suffered a serious stroke or similar and was unable to formally resign. He'd therefore not submit an objection and the VP would be Acting President indefinitely with no vote.
I agree it could be interpreted that way as well. Arguably then the President could get back in with a third of the vote in one of the chambers even if the other doesn't vote (e.g. because the current House Speaker refuses to put it to a vote).
Delightfully ambiguous. And that text doesn't even have the excuse of being 200 years old. But as you say, it wasn't really intended for the current situation.
Surely the problem is that no-one anticipated the likes of Trump. Especially when combined with a fanatic bloc of supporters in Congress. TBH I'm not sure HOW you would draft legislation to do so, but clearly the present doesn't fit the bill.
I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.
Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.
Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.
Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.
There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.
The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.
I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.
IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.
These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.
Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.
I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.
My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
Yeah how old fashioned! Trans folk wear them too, and so what if Cisgender men do?!
Interesting signs. One a standard conspiracy theory bit of nonsense notable only for its utterly mad word placements, and the other just being plain wrong.
54,940 cases. Still trending up in England, but that could be primarily due to cases in Christmas level 2 areas like Liverpool still shooting up. Trending down very slowly in Scotland and Wales, bit more in NI. London still looking no better than stable.
The worry is that all this reflects the quiet time between Christmas and last weekend, and that more people going back to work or school could reignite it again. And of course the case levels are too high anyway.
We are in Weekend Effect - we come out of that on Tuesday.
It's 7-day averages to take out the weekend effect. I realise there's also still the Christmas effect to contend with.
I would be very cautious about saying anything has changed until we are out of this weekend.
There are trends that give some hope - particularly in the R computed from cases (which creates it's own averaging effect) but I don't see any real evidence. Yet.
I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.
Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.
Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.
Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.
There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.
The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.
I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.
IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.
These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.
Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.
KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
Do you really have to post that sort of vile crap here? (Referring to the Parler post not the tweet per se)
I wouldn't wish to deny you an opportunity for sanctimony, but it looks like someone else has taken it out of my hands.
Personally I prefer to know what I'm up against rather than bleating about 'healing' and 'listening'.
I agree with you posting it and disagree with Charles.
It's very easy for people to kid themselves that Parler is a risible talking shop for tin foil hatters - and as a liberal, I worry about the free speech of essentially harmless eccentrics even if they have views I strongly oppose. And I am sure a lot of it is like that. But when you see a bit of the type of material circulating, it casts a different light on the reason for the position of Google and others. I'd not want to see a stream of messages from there, but yours was a useful indicator of the true position.
it is not confusing them... they are bloody furious and this patronising guff makes them even more annoyed. My folks- over 80 and long term conditions, cancer and arthritis- got their first jab on day two. on New Years Eve they were phoned up to be told second jab, scheduled on 4th Jan was cancelled and no new date given, then phoned again to be told a new date would come soon, but still not yet given.
On the scale of tens of thousands of people, how much did this particular Tory screw up cost?
Well I suppose you could interpret “sickness and self-isolation” as referring to Brexit.
My guess is it’s Covid that’s causing the issues at food processors.
For around ten months I have been eagerly anticipating the first post on PB that shrouds Brexit chaos with the cloak of Covid, and bingo, there it was.
This is what the BBC article says:
"It told customers in an email that there may be "an increase of missing items and substitutions over the next few weeks".
Staff sickness and self-isolation means some food producers are cutting the number of product lines they offer.
While customers might not get their exact product choice, plenty of food should be available, Ocado said.
"Staff absences across the supply chain may lead to an increase in product substitutions for a small number of customers as some suppliers consolidate their offering to maintain output," a spokesperson said."
But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.
I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.
My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
I wouldn't want to hear that from my granddad. I wouldn't tick him off or anything but I'd be moving things along to other topics. Or possibly I'd offer him a Werther's Original.
Comments
Senate Pro Tem is next after House Speaker.
Would be useful if the Supreme Court could settle the eligibility question before the situation ever arises.
However, it would be pretty dramatic if it was invoked and Trump contested it (there's only a vote if he contests in writing). I'm not sure Republicans would be able to drag it out, certainly in the House. I think it would just be too tempting for Democrats to force Republican colleagues to choose between Pence and Trump.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/10/twitter-trump-ban-regulation-rethink-hancock
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/09/oxford-university-fresh-rhodes-must-fall-row-college-renames/amp/
I can see it may affect committee assignments (as these are distributed by parties to members) but not seniority within the Senate or on the committee the (new) party put them on.
The worry is that all this reflects the quiet time between Christmas and last weekend, and that more people going back to work or school could reignite it again. And of course the case levels are too high anyway.
There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.
The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/12/30/odyssey-banned-for-violence-sexism-is-this-the-end-of-world-classics
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
cf The Tempest (William Shakespeare)
If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
However smart you try to be, Covid is smarter.
https://twitter.com/StephenMcGann/status/1348309802783531012
However they can't really prevent Newsmax and OANN from doing so without infringing his first amendment rights in my view.
On another topic - Is it one rule for walkers in Derbyshire and another for football supporters on Merseyside ?
I see your reasoning that they could vote repeatedly within the 21 days and only at the end of the 21 days would it be clear there wasn't a 2/3rds majority. But I don't think it would be interpreted that way and, once there has been a vote lacking the required majority the President would resume.
Note that there may not be a vote at all - it's only if the President disputes it. It's never been used but I suspect if it was in future it would be because the President had suffered a serious stroke or similar and was unable to formally resign. He'd therefore not submit an objection and the VP would be Acting President indefinitely with no vote.
I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
My guess is it’s Covid that’s causing the issues at food processors.
https://twitter.com/acabforacutie/status/1345204842176815109?s=19
It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1348311848756666368
IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.
These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
It is very troubling that they have the ability to deny the right to express legal opinions freely to a large number of people
Any more political/military classics that have sunk without trace?
As an aside, BritBox is really quite good. Have found several series there that I've been meaning to watch for ages - like Our Friends in the North
Delightfully ambiguous. And that text doesn't even have the excuse of being 200 years old. But as you say, it wasn't really intended for the current situation.
You can rent/buy for £3.49/£7 on Amazon Prime or iTunes.
You are talking about the guy who began a work report and a PB thread header with the line
'Never trust anyone who can spell gonorrhoea correctly on the first attempt.'
It's a great way to get the attention of your audience.
Personally I prefer to know what I'm up against rather than bleating about 'healing' and 'listening'.
For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
1st Jan - 554
2nd Jan - 581
3rd Jan - 568
4th Jan - 695
5th Jan - 685
6th Jan - 680
TBH I'm not sure HOW you would draft legislation to do so, but clearly the present doesn't fit the bill.
Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55605149
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1348297072827621376?s=20
There are trends that give some hope - particularly in the R computed from cases (which creates it's own averaging effect) but I don't see any real evidence. Yet.
They were specifically given the power to contain an unruly President, then spectacularly failed in their duty.
KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
It's very easy for people to kid themselves that Parler is a risible talking shop for tin foil hatters - and as a liberal, I worry about the free speech of essentially harmless eccentrics even if they have views I strongly oppose. And I am sure a lot of it is like that. But when you see a bit of the type of material circulating, it casts a different light on the reason for the position of Google and others. I'd not want to see a stream of messages from there, but yours was a useful indicator of the true position.
On the scale of tens of thousands of people, how much did this particular Tory screw up cost?
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1348303032665186304
"It told customers in an email that there may be "an increase of missing items and substitutions over the next few weeks".
Staff sickness and self-isolation means some food producers are cutting the number of product lines they offer.
While customers might not get their exact product choice, plenty of food should be available, Ocado said.
"Staff absences across the supply chain may lead to an increase in product substitutions for a small number of customers as some suppliers consolidate their offering to maintain output," a spokesperson said."
I don't see much shrouding there.
NOTE: The scaling of the colours has been changed at the request of various people. Not sure if I like the result.
NOTE: The scaling of the colours has been changed at the request of various people. Not sure if I like the result.
NOTE: The scaling of the colours has been changed at the request of various people. Not sure if I like the result.
Today
Yesterday