Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Even if that were true, the chinese authorities can hardly complain if people distrust them when they are a brutal authoritarian regime, and that regime frequently controls things western government have far less influence over.
Comparing PB posters with what it accused to be state sponsored misinformation, is also rather weak, unless the BBC is pushing ant-Chinese vaccine speculation.
Compare and contrast with the Bush family showing the Obama family round.... complete with Obama kids using a sloped corridor as a slide, to smiles from all the adults.
I read that the Obama family were really touched by the efforts that the Bush family made to make them feel welcome and make the handover as smooth as possible. I know Obama also said Bush did everything he could to make the power transition as smooth and professional as possible.
Could it be that Dubya is a patriot and a fundamentally decent man, regardless of what one thinks of his politics (I mean, it will come as no surprise that I don't approve of them!) – and that the odious Trump family are self-serving, petty morons with no shred of human decency?
I mean, that could be one hypothesis.
Michelle Obama's quote is that they (she and Bush) differ on policy but not humanity.
Bush really was delighted that someone with an African-American roots had become POTUS, I remember a quote from Bush in circa 2002 which said everyday America allowed slavery was a day America wasn't true to itself.
He also went out of his way to ensure Obama was looked after.
Normal precedent was that you only get Secret Service protection once you get the nomination, which is around April time, but according to the FBI it was clear people were looking to assassinate Obama, so Bush authorised the Secret Service to protect Obama well before that.
Edit - Also at Trump's inauguration, after Trump gave his speech, Bushed turned around to Michelle Obama and said 'Well that was some weird shit.'
Bush is responsible for getting on for a million (is it?) violent deaths, more than a few of them British deaths, due to a war he launched on an entirely false prospectus. I don't hate or resent him for that - I don't hate or resent anyone, however, it does seem more than a little ridiculous to eulogise him on the base of being better at the niceties of Presidential behaviour than one of his successors.
Yes, Iraq was a terrible mistake.
But I'd rather have a leader who made terrible mistakes, awful mistakes, but who respected the system of government, the rule of law and who accepted the will of the voters.
You know why? Because those things allow mistakes to be corrected.
It's why it was better to have dreadful governments in the 1970s that put forward ridiculous tax policies, that allowed the rubbish to go uncollected and the unions to run out of control, than the alternative of backing a coup. Because that coup may have implemented policies I liked, but it would have destroyed the system I loved.
You make your broad point in a compelling way, but I think calling Iraq 'a mistake' is a little wide of the mark. The same mistake was attempted in Syria an administration later and very nearly happened. If the mistake isn't a mistake but a feature, the system becomes a little harder to love for me.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Rather obvious problem with that. The question didn't say WHICH the anthem is. Not something one can count on folk knowing. Jerusalem, for instance?
Even a plurality of Scots like it, I highly doubt that would be the case if they thought it was Jerusalem rather than GSTQ
What is the Scottish figure for love/like v. hate/dislike as a matter of interest? The weasel word 'plurality' makes me suspicious.
Did we ever find out from HYUFD?
You could click on the link to the full results that's in the tweet that he posted?
True, but he'd already obviuously done the work, right down to picking a rather suspicious word to describe it (and I've been busy for most of the afternoon).
Edit: and thankls to TSE who is honest enough and devolted tnough to reveal all ...
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Rather obvious problem with that. The question didn't say WHICH the anthem is. Not something one can count on folk knowing. Jerusalem, for instance?
Even a plurality of Scots like it, I highly doubt that would be the case if they thought it was Jerusalem rather than GSTQ
What is the Scottish figure for love/like v. hate/dislike as a matter of interest? The weasel word 'plurality' makes me suspicious.
Did we ever find out from HYUFD?
You could click on the link to the full results that's in the tweet that he posted?
True, but he'd already obviuously done the work, right down to picking a rather suspicious word to describe it (and I've been busy for most of the afternoon).
Edit: and thankls to TSE who is honest enough and devolted tnough to reveal all ...
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
This is from "China State Affiliated Media". AFAIK PB isn't state affiliated? And have the Beeb been tweeting rubbish about the Chinese vaccine?
Well our PM, govt and state media repeatedly told us we were the first country in the world to license a covid vaccine when the Chinese and Russians had done so several months before. It is now generally referred to as first Western country to do so, but they sometimes slip back to first in the world. The Sinovac one was licensed in June and is being used in many countries outside of China. We assume theirs is dangerous, doesnt work or doesnt even exist etc when more neutral countries like Brazil or UAE are happy to use it. Why not expect the same in return? Glass houses and all that.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
That's rather self pitying. You insisted several times that the situation was odd, and that it said something essentially sinister about colonialism, based on your own personal view on what countries should be allowed to look like, eg they must be close to one another to have oversight of a territory (as I cannot think of another reason for confusion about it being 'odd' but that it is far away), which itself could be called odd and which, as pointed out, opens up so many existing countries to accusations they are 'odd' or should belong to someone else.
Dismissing people objecting to that as frothing is lame and tiresome. You may disagree with it, but people took issue with your rather severe interpretation of what constituted 'normal' nationhood or territoriality and explained why, you further stated your position, and people came back again.
That's debate, it doesn't make it 'frothing' because people objected to the proposition you put forth.
Rather obvious problem with that. The question didn't say WHICH the anthem is. Not something one can count on folk knowing. Jerusalem, for instance?
Even a plurality of Scots like it, I highly doubt that would be the case if they thought it was Jerusalem rather than GSTQ
What is the Scottish figure for love/like v. hate/dislike as a matter of interest? The weasel word 'plurality' makes me suspicious.
Did we ever find out from HYUFD?
You could click on the link to the full results that's in the tweet that he posted?
True, but he'd already obviuously done the work, right down to picking a rather suspicious word to describe it (and I've been busy for most of the afternoon).
Edit: and thankls to TSE who is honest enough and devolted tnough to reveal all ...
Since you're so busy, full results:
I'm too busy to look at all that. Can you call me and read it out to me?
@Richard_Tyndall much as it pains me to say so the US, French and Soviet anthems all have more to recommend them musically.
The Chinese one got totally drilled into my soul during the 2012 Olympics because I heard it so bloody often. But whilst distinctive at the start I don't think it's very good.
The Soviet anthem is a great bit of music. They played it at a Russian wedding I attended a couple of years ago in Londongrad, all of the Russians stood to attention and sang along. Was a bit weird, can't imagine anyone playing GSTQ at their wedding.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
The compromise a vaguely intelligent Argentine government would make is to lovebomb the islanders. Special trading perks, exchange programmes, funding infrastructure projects, encouraging trade and communication between the mainland and the islands until the people of the Falklands were so plugged into Argentina’s economy and society that they saw no reason to keep a British flag flying out of sentiment.
Instead, they have taken the exact opposite approach of violence, threats, cutting them off from the mainland and consequently earned the deep and abiding hatred of the islanders as a result because they are even more useless than our lot of crooks and chancers, which is saying something.
Mind you, the Spanish themselves are no better in the way they’ve approached Gibraltar for the last 46 years.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There’s a stronger case for St Pierre and Miquelon to be given to Canada.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
That's rather self pitying. You insisted several times that the situation was odd, and that it said something essentially sinister about colonialism, based on your own personal view on what countries should be allowed to look like, eg they must be close to one another to have oversight of a territory (as I cannot think of another reason for confusion about it being 'odd' but that it is far away), which itself could be called odd and which, as pointed out, opens up so many existing countries to accusations they are 'odd' or should belong to someone else.
Dismissing people objecting to that as frothing is lame and tiresome. You may disagree with it, but people took issue with your rather severe interpretation of what constituted 'normal' nationhood or territoriality and explained why, you further stated your position, and people came back again.
That's debate, it doesn't make it 'frothing' because people objected to the proposition you put forth.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
@Richard_Tyndall much as it pains me to say so the US, French and Soviet anthems all have more to recommend them musically.
The Chinese one got totally drilled into my soul during the 2012 Olympics because I heard it so bloody often. But whilst distinctive at the start I don't think it's very good.
The Soviet anthem is a great bit of music. They played it at a Russian wedding I attended a couple of years ago in Londongrad, all of the Russians stood to attention and sang along. Was a bit weird, can't imagine anyone playing GSTQ at their wedding.
Isn't the Russian anthem the same tune as the Soviet one but with different words?
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
@Richard_Tyndall much as it pains me to say so the US, French and Soviet anthems all have more to recommend them musically.
The Chinese one got totally drilled into my soul during the 2012 Olympics because I heard it so bloody often. But whilst distinctive at the start I don't think it's very good.
The Soviet anthem is a great bit of music. They played it at a Russian wedding I attended a couple of years ago in Londongrad, all of the Russians stood to attention and sang along. Was a bit weird, can't imagine anyone playing GSTQ at their wedding.
Why not? They used to play it at the cinema.
Did they really? Perhaps they could pen words to the tune about turning off your phone to bring it back.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
The first time Trump would be associated with the word class.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
It’s weird how many territorial disputes there are in South America. I think only Ecuador has borders that nobody disputes. Heck, Venezuela claims the majority of Guyana plus large chunks of Colombia and Brazil.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
The compromise a vaguely intelligent Argentine government would make is to lovebomb the islanders. Special trading perks, exchange programmes, funding infrastructure projects, encouraging trade and communication between the mainland and the islands until the people of the Falklands were so plugged into Argentina’s economy and society that they saw no reason to keep a British flag flying out of sentiment.
Instead, they have taken the exact opposite approach of violence, threats, cutting them off from the mainland and consequently earned the deep and abiding hatred of the islanders as a result because they are even more useless than our lot of crooks and chancers, which is saying something.
Mind you, the Spanish themselves are no better in the way they’ve approached Gibraltar for the last 46 years.
Bit better now than it used to be with Gibraltar, surely?
I'm not expert, but I always thought there was a slight difference between the two situations, in that I thought Argentina essentially claims the Islands have always rightfully belonged to them (since the demise of the Spanish Empire) and that the British are squatters, whereas the Spanish really did sign away Gibraltar for ever (not that they stopped trying to recover it), but would like for it to be returned and/or the British are not fully adhering to the terms.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Surely based on your own logic it's at least as odd for Argentina to claim sovereignty over them. If Britain initiated a similar dispute arguing for the Faroe Islands to be transferred from Denmark because we are closer, I doubt you would find any merit in the claim or regard it as a legitimate problem that needed resolution.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Surely based on your own logic it's at least as odd for Argentina to claim sovereignty over them. If Britain initiated a similar dispute arguing for the Faroe Islands to be transferred from Denmark because we are closer, I doubt you would find any merit in the claim or regard it as a legitimate problem that needed resolution.
Perhaps we should be transferred to Danish control instead?
If not that, they need to be on a leash and muzzled at all times.
Richmond Park dog walker fined £602 over pet's 'relentless' fatal attack on deer
Police are urging dog owners to keep their pets on a tight lead after an increase in attacks during lockdown.
A man has been fined £602 after his dog fatally injured a deer during a "relentless" attack in London's Richmond Park.
Dramatic footage filmed by a cyclist shows Franck Hiribarne's red setter, Alfie, rushing at the small hind, jumping up at her and dragging her backwards, at around 9am on 1 October last year.
Despite the efforts of several passers-by to get between the animals, forming a human barrier to stop the attack, Alfie left the deer with deep wounds to her back and tail, which was partially detached.
The hind also suffered a broken leg after being hit by a car in her attempts to get away.
She was found a short while later, collapsed in the ferns, and had to be put down by a gamekeeper.
Mr Hiribarne, from southwest London, pleaded guilty at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court on 15 January to causing or permitting an animal he was in charge of to injure another animal in a royal park. He was fined £602.
The defendant reported the incident himself to the Royal Parks Office, while witnesses - some of whom described the attack as "relentless" - spoke to officers in a passing police car.
Red setters are horrid little dogs. They look nice though.
You must be very big, if you consider a Red Setter to be "little".
I'm 6.2. I suppose they're medium.
In bare feet and not on tip toes?
If so, that's unusual.
Roughly the 95th percentile for British males at age 18. You'd expect at least 16 MPs to be that tall, even if you had a perfect gender balance.
Yes, very unusual. This is why I always doublecheck when somebody says they are that tall.
A significant number of the sixth-form boys I teach are that height or more. Many of my A-level sets over the years have contained someone who has to duck to go through the door of the lab.
Well it's approx 1 in 20 according to @LostPassword. If your classes are consistently much taller than that there's something funny going on. A strong and positive correlation between physics and height. Guess it's possible.
I'm 6'4''. In Germany I meet men who are at least as tall as I am a lot more often than I did when I lived in England. But I don't consider 6'2'' to be "very unusual" in England, and over here I would say it's common for men at least.
The Dutch are the tallest, I gather. But, yes, I would think Germans are taller than Brits. Grrr.
Six four is objectively very tall indeed. If you consider that "base camp" is five six - i.e. hardly any men are under that - you are 10 inches higher than this whereas with me, for example, it's only 4 inches. In this sense you are two and a half times my size.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
It’s weird how many territorial disputes there are in South America. I think only Ecuador has borders that nobody disputes. Heck, Venezuela claims the majority of Guyana plus large chunks of Colombia and Brazil.
Peru vs Ecuador
Yes, there was an agreement signed, finally. But lots of Peruvians are still convinced they were robbed.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Surely based on your own logic it's at least as odd for Argentina to claim sovereignty over them. If Britain initiated a similar dispute arguing for the Faroe Islands to be transferred from Denmark because we are closer, I doubt you would find any merit in the claim or regard it as a legitimate problem that needed resolution.
Perhaps we should be transferred to Danish control instead?
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
The Capitol is Federal property in a Federal district so, theoretically, with a list, he could pardon eveyone who stormed the building for the action of so doing. But a "class pardon"? Sounds unlikely but then again in a proclamation on December 25, 1868, President Johnson declared "...unconditionally, and without reservation, ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ..."
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There’s a stronger case for St Pierre and Miquelon to be given to Canada.
They could be certainly handed over to the province of Quebec (though they are of course closer to Terre-Neuve et Labrador).
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
It’s weird how many territorial disputes there are in South America. I think only Ecuador has borders that nobody disputes. Heck, Venezuela claims the majority of Guyana plus large chunks of Colombia and Brazil.
It's not that weird is it? Quite a lot of nations got forged in pretty short order, frankly I'm surprised there are not more disputes.
I remember this story from a few years ago
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Bolivia in its dispute with neighbouring Chile over access to the Pacific Ocean - a feud dating back to the late 19th Century.
Landlocked Bolivia lost access to the sea in 1884 after a war with Chile and has tried to regain it ever since.
The court said Chile was not obliged to negotiate granting Bolivia access.
The ruling, which comes after five years of deliberations, is final and binding.
Despite the final nature of the ruling, Bolivian President Evo Morales said "Bolivia will never give up"...
Despite having no access to the sea, Bolivia maintains a small navy and celebrates the Day of the Sea every year.
FBI vets thousands of troops amid fears of insider attack on Biden inauguration
Extra checks to prevent repeat of 6 January attack on Capitol
National guard plays down fears of extremism within ranks
Thousands of military personnel guarding Joe Biden’s inauguration as US president on Wednesday are being vetted by the FBI amid fears of an insider attack.
The biggest ever security operation for a presidential transition has turned swaths of Washington into a fortress, barricades, razor wire and 7ft fences erected to prevent a repeat of the deadly 6 January attack on the US Capitol by a mob incited by Donald Trump.
National guard personnel train part-time while holding civilian jobs or attending college. Some 25,000 members – more than double the number at previous inaugurations – are pouring into Washington from across the country, at short notice.
There are concerns that some of the very people assigned to protect the city could present a threat to the incoming president and other dignitaries, the Associated Press reported. Their names will be fed through an FBI database for any evidence of connections to investigations or terrorism or other red flags.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Surely based on your own logic it's at least as odd for Argentina to claim sovereignty over them. If Britain initiated a similar dispute arguing for the Faroe Islands to be transferred from Denmark because we are closer, I doubt you would find any merit in the claim or regard it as a legitimate problem that needed resolution.
Frother.
Since nowhere has a claim to anywhere else due to mere proximity I'm surprised those who feel odd about colonial possessions don't simply advocate for independence for them.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
The compromise a vaguely intelligent Argentine government would make is to lovebomb the islanders. Special trading perks, exchange programmes, funding infrastructure projects, encouraging trade and communication between the mainland and the islands until the people of the Falklands were so plugged into Argentina’s economy and society that they saw no reason to keep a British flag flying out of sentiment.
Instead, they have taken the exact opposite approach of violence, threats, cutting them off from the mainland and consequently earned the deep and abiding hatred of the islanders as a result because they are even more useless than our lot of crooks and chancers, which is saying something.
Mind you, the Spanish themselves are no better in the way they’ve approached Gibraltar for the last 46 years.
Bit better now than it used to be with Gibraltar, surely?
I'm not expert, but I always thought there was a slight difference between the two situations, in that I thought Argentina essentially claims the Islands have always rightfully belonged to them (since the demise of the Spanish Empire) and that the British are squatters, whereas the Spanish really did sign away Gibraltar for ever (not that they stopped trying to recover it), but would like for it to be returned and/or the British are not fully adhering to the terms.
I’m also no expert on the history of Gibraltar, but I understood that the Spanish claimed it was signed away (a) under duress and (b) on the understanding it would only be a naval base. Which, they argue, makes the handover void.
Mind you, regardless of the technicalities of their case they have a right cheek to argue that while holding Ceuta and Melilla and describing them as ‘inviolable Spanish territory.’
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
Is preparing to commit an offence, itself an offence, anyway? In English law an attempt has to be "more than merely preparatory," i think. If acting in groups they may have been guilty of conspiring, possibly, but you'd want some actual evidence, and many or most of them look like lone actors till they got to DC.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
Sure, if there was unlimited supply it would be best to choose the best vaccine. The world is not in that situation and we should be encouraging countries to use what is available, things can be improved by 2022 and beyond. Any of the vaccines available, including the Chinese ones, are a massive scientific achievement and responsible people should be encouraging their use wherever the vaccines are from, not criticising them out of nationalistic prejudices or ignoring their existence as our govt did.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Surely based on your own logic it's at least as odd for Argentina to claim sovereignty over them. If Britain initiated a similar dispute arguing for the Faroe Islands to be transferred from Denmark because we are closer, I doubt you would find any merit in the claim or regard it as a legitimate problem that needed resolution.
Enforcing sovereignty over somewhere purely because it's close is not something I'd be at all comfortable with. But that's not where my logic is going because I'm not rowing in full square behind Argentina's claim to the Falklands without knowing much - as I don't - about what the basis is for the claim.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
That's what every US cop program that wants to show local cops clashing with the feds has taught me.
For those with a couple of hours to spare here is an entertaining look at the various crimes that those who invaded the Capitol on the 6th could face, presented by a US lawyer:
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
If someone illegally manufactured an explosive device in Maryland, and transported it to Washington, and attempted to blow up the RNC HQ, then received a pardon for all Federal crimes, do you think Maryland would attempt a prosecution under state laws governing the manufacture and handling of explosives?
As an aside, have they even crossed a state line, since DC isn't a state?
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
Sure, if there was unlimited supply it would be best to choose the best vaccine. The world is not in that situation and we should be encouraging countries to use what is available, things can be improved by 2022 and beyond. Any of the vaccines available, including the Chinese ones, are a massive scientific achievement and responsible people should be encouraging their use wherever the vaccines are from, not criticising them out of nationalistic prejudices or ignoring their existence as our govt did.
We have potentially have three vaccines that do that (Pfizer, Moderna and AZ have all shown signs of warding off the virus entirely, the latter on the 12 week dosing regime we've chosen). The world should be paying these companies to manufacture 15bn doses this year and next.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
Is preparing to commit an offence, itself an offence, anyway? In English law an attempt has to be "more than merely preparatory," i think. If acting in groups they may have been guilty of conspiring, possibly, but you'd want some actual evidence, and many or most of them look like lone actors till they got to DC.
I'm only going on my experience of dealing with financial crimes in America.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There’s a stronger case for St Pierre and Miquelon to be given to Canada.
Called in there a few years ago on a Fred Olsen cruise from Liverpool. Went for a proper French lunch with French wine, and paid in euros. As a francophile, it was great!
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
Surely based on your own logic it's at least as odd for Argentina to claim sovereignty over them. If Britain initiated a similar dispute arguing for the Faroe Islands to be transferred from Denmark because we are closer, I doubt you would find any merit in the claim or regard it as a legitimate problem that needed resolution.
Claiming sovereignty over somewhere purely because it's close is not something I'd be at all comfortable with. But that's not where my logic is going because I'm not rowing in full square behind Argentina's claim to the Falklands without knowing much - as I don't - about what the basis is for the claim.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) says it is because they inherited Spain's claim, the British claim was acquiesced via inaction when the Argentines sought to claim them, the reassertion of British sovereignty in 1833 doesn't count, the settlers are not aboriginal and therefore self determination is not applicable, it's on the continental shelf facing Argentina andso on.
There are legally worse claims to disputed territories out there, to be sure. But nearly 200 years on from the reassertion of British sovereignty it really feels a bit late to be disrupting an entire population of settled status for generations and generations, or insisting that those people be forced to negotiate something they do not want to negotiate.
Compromise is usually a reasonable approach, but forcing people to compromise when they see no benefit to doing so is not really compromise at all.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
Partygoers who claimed to be unaware of the global pandemic, a group hosting a gender reveal party and people attending an illegal car meet are among the coronavirus rule-breakers caught over the weekend.
Police shut down a party in Basingstoke, Hampshire, on Saturday but were told the hosts were "unaware of the global pandemic, as they never watch the news".
The people of Basingstoke were allocated a finite amount of intelligence and personality. After John Arlott had taken his share, there wasn’t much left for the remainder of the population.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
The compromise a vaguely intelligent Argentine government would make is to lovebomb the islanders. Special trading perks, exchange programmes, funding infrastructure projects, encouraging trade and communication between the mainland and the islands until the people of the Falklands were so plugged into Argentina’s economy and society that they saw no reason to keep a British flag flying out of sentiment.
Instead, they have taken the exact opposite approach of violence, threats, cutting them off from the mainland and consequently earned the deep and abiding hatred of the islanders as a result because they are even more useless than our lot of crooks and chancers, which is saying something.
Mind you, the Spanish themselves are no better in the way they’ve approached Gibraltar for the last 46 years.
Bit better now than it used to be with Gibraltar, surely?
I'm not expert, but I always thought there was a slight difference between the two situations, in that I thought Argentina essentially claims the Islands have always rightfully belonged to them (since the demise of the Spanish Empire) and that the British are squatters, whereas the Spanish really did sign away Gibraltar for ever (not that they stopped trying to recover it), but would like for it to be returned and/or the British are not fully adhering to the terms.
I’m also no expert on the history of Gibraltar, but I understood that the Spanish claimed it was signed away (a) under duress and (b) on the understanding it would only be a naval base. Which, they argue, makes the handover void.
Mind you, regardless of the technicalities of their case they have a right cheek to argue that while holding Ceuta and Melilla and describing them as ‘inviolable Spanish territory.’
That is amusing.
I've always though the duress argument is an odd one to try to make today. Pretty sure all treaties like that were signed under duress, usually because your side lost a war. The idea you didn't immediately ignore a treaty the instant you felt you were strong enough to do so seems to be a pretty modern idea. Seems like a lot of treaties would be voided if we accepted the duress argument today.
They could always argue that jews and moors have been been allowed to reside there, which I recall a Gibraltarian poster stating was in violation of the treaty.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
Sure, if there was unlimited supply it would be best to choose the best vaccine. The world is not in that situation and we should be encouraging countries to use what is available, things can be improved by 2022 and beyond. Any of the vaccines available, including the Chinese ones, are a massive scientific achievement and responsible people should be encouraging their use wherever the vaccines are from, not criticising them out of nationalistic prejudices or ignoring their existence as our govt did.
We have potentially have three vaccines that do that (Pfizer, Moderna and AZ have all shown signs of warding off the virus entirely, the latter on the 12 week dosing regime we've chosen). The world should be paying these companies to manufacture 15bn doses this year and next.
We're also likely to get positive J&J news this week, if Fauci is to be believed.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
Is preparing to commit an offence, itself an offence, anyway? In English law an attempt has to be "more than merely preparatory," i think. If acting in groups they may have been guilty of conspiring, possibly, but you'd want some actual evidence, and many or most of them look like lone actors till they got to DC.
I know someone who was involved in a tax avoidance scheme. In the end he backed out before he engaged in the fraud. His two co-conspirators did engage, got caught and convicted. My acquaintance got a suspended sentence for his trouble, despite not partaking in the main event, his friends were given immediate custodial sentences.
If the police stop your car, and find you have a crow bar and bolt cutters on board, Isuspect you might have trouble avoiding a "going equipped" charge.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
Sure, if there was unlimited supply it would be best to choose the best vaccine. The world is not in that situation and we should be encouraging countries to use what is available, things can be improved by 2022 and beyond. Any of the vaccines available, including the Chinese ones, are a massive scientific achievement and responsible people should be encouraging their use wherever the vaccines are from, not criticising them out of nationalistic prejudices or ignoring their existence as our govt did.
We have potentially have three vaccines that do that (Pfizer, Moderna and AZ have all shown signs of warding off the virus entirely, the latter on the 12 week dosing regime we've chosen). The world should be paying these companies to manufacture 15bn doses this year and next.
We're also likely to get positive J&J news this week, if Fauci is to be believed.
Hopefully it does the job with one dose, if it protects against infection it will become the defacto vaccine globally IMO.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
If someone illegally manufactured an explosive device in Maryland, and transported it to Washington, and attempted to blow up the RNC HQ, then received a pardon for all Federal crimes, do you think Maryland would attempt a prosecution under state laws governing the manufacture and handling of explosives?
As an aside, have they even crossed a state line, since DC isn't a state?
In your example the dual sovereignty doctrine applies so they can, but the bar to show regards the attack on the Capitol saw a crime in the state before the actual insurrection is going to be a pretty high bar.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
Sure, if there was unlimited supply it would be best to choose the best vaccine. The world is not in that situation and we should be encouraging countries to use what is available, things can be improved by 2022 and beyond. Any of the vaccines available, including the Chinese ones, are a massive scientific achievement and responsible people should be encouraging their use wherever the vaccines are from, not criticising them out of nationalistic prejudices or ignoring their existence as our govt did.
We have potentially have three vaccines that do that (Pfizer, Moderna and AZ have all shown signs of warding off the virus entirely, the latter on the 12 week dosing regime we've chosen). The world should be paying these companies to manufacture 15bn doses this year and next.
We're also likely to get positive J&J news this week, if Fauci is to be believed.
Hopefully it does the job with one dose, if it protects against infection it will become the defacto vaccine globally IMO.
Is it cheap to manufacture do we know? I recall that the AstraZeneca one is apparently pretty cost effective, and if it is a lot cheaper than the double Boris then it doesn't seem impossible those two are widespread, with some of the others by the posh people the latter is not quite so effective as, say, Pfizer.
But it will make the job so much easier it's worth quite a bit more cost I should think.
Well it's approx 1 in 20 according to @LostPassword. If your classes are consistently much taller than that there's something funny going on. A strong and positive correlation between physics and height. Guess it's possible.
I'm just under 6'1 (185 cm precisely), and slightly shorter than my other half, 99.955%ile apparently. My younger brother is slightly taller than me too.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Still say the G7 summit should NOT be held in Cornwall. Due to obvious dangers from crazed Cornish nationalists, random flash flooding, dodgy meat pasties, addlepated ex-tin miners and bumper-to-bumper from St Ives to the Shepherd's Bush Roundabout.
Instead, move the G7 to the splendid isolation of Rockall.
As gesture of world progress and European cooperation (or visa versa) make Rockall the permanent site of all future summits, under joint co-sponsorship AND - sovereignty of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Scotland, Faroe Islands and the Audubon Society.
Half the regulars on this site have spent the last few months gleefully rubbishing the Chinese vaccine based on nothing more than their distrust of China. Why would they not expect the opposite to occur in China?
Er...it crawled over the WHO 50% minimum efficacy on one metric. Relative to the others, it is rubbish, without any side dish of glee.
That was the new Sinovac vaccine, reported last week. There’s also another one called Sinopharm, which is good and has been rolling out in many countries already.
Even Sinovac:
50% effective at catching the disease 78% effective in stopping symptoms 100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
It’s a bit of a dud by comparison to others we’ve seen, barely meeting the 50% WHO standard, but it’s still going to be a lot better than nothing if there’s a factory ready to make them in the millions.
I dont understand the hang up with efficacy, the whole point of them is to stop moderate to severe symptoms otherwise we would never bother with them. Fortunately as far as I have read, all the vaccines, including the Chinese ones are almost completely effective at achieving this.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
A vaccine which prevents people from getting it and spreading it better because it gives the virus much less opportunity to mutate and doesn't overload hospitals.
Sure, if there was unlimited supply it would be best to choose the best vaccine. The world is not in that situation and we should be encouraging countries to use what is available, things can be improved by 2022 and beyond. Any of the vaccines available, including the Chinese ones, are a massive scientific achievement and responsible people should be encouraging their use wherever the vaccines are from, not criticising them out of nationalistic prejudices or ignoring their existence as our govt did.
We have potentially have three vaccines that do that (Pfizer, Moderna and AZ have all shown signs of warding off the virus entirely, the latter on the 12 week dosing regime we've chosen). The world should be paying these companies to manufacture 15bn doses this year and next.
We're also likely to get positive J&J news this week, if Fauci is to be believed.
Hopefully it does the job with one dose, if it protects against infection it will become the defacto vaccine globally IMO.
Is it cheap to manufacture do we know? I recall that the AstraZeneca one is apparently pretty cost effective, and if it is a lot cheaper than the double Boris then it doesn't seem impossible those two are widespread, with some of the others by the posh people the latter is not quite so effective as, say, Pfizer.
But it will make the job so much easier it's worth quite a bit more cost I should think.
It's an adenovirus based jab so it has all the same ease of transport and storage as the AZ vaccine, the cost for a single dose is around the same as two AZ doses so it probably ends up significantly cheaper once you take into account storage, distribution and injecting people a second time.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
It is 1,543 km from Port Stanley to Buenos Aires.
It is only 463 km from London to Dublin.
On Kirchner's logic the UK government has a greater claim to Ireland than Argentina has to the Falkland Islands
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There’s a stronger case for St Pierre and Miquelon to be given to Canada.
Called in there a few years ago on a Fred Olsen cruise from Liverpool. Went for a proper French lunch with French wine, and paid in euros. As a francophile, it was great!
Ssshh. We have to keep our forbidden love for the French secret around here. One of the guys in charge believes it is a crime perhaps even worse than putting pineapple on your pizza.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
I think the law in England is (or perhaps used to be) that ten years of "adverse possession" gave squatters the ownership of the building, so that may not be the killer argument she thinks it is...
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Does that apply to European settlers on the South American mainland?
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
Is preparing to commit an offence, itself an offence, anyway? In English law an attempt has to be "more than merely preparatory," i think. If acting in groups they may have been guilty of conspiring, possibly, but you'd want some actual evidence, and many or most of them look like lone actors till they got to DC.
I know someone who was involved in a tax avoidance scheme. In the end he backed out before he engaged in the fraud. His two co-conspirators did engage, got caught and convicted. My acquaintance got a suspended sentence for his trouble, despite not partaking in the main event, his friends were given immediate custodial sentences.
If the police stop your car, and find you have a crow bar and bolt cutters on board, Isuspect you might have trouble avoiding a "going equipped" charge.
Presumably tax evasion, not avoidance (which is legal).
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Rather obvious problem with that. The question didn't say WHICH the anthem is. Not something one can count on folk knowing. Jerusalem, for instance?
Even a plurality of Scots like it, I highly doubt that would be the case if they thought it was Jerusalem rather than GSTQ
What is the Scottish figure for love/like v. hate/dislike as a matter of interest? The weasel word 'plurality' makes me suspicious.
Did we ever find out from HYUFD?
Scottish subsample KLAXON.
Regarding the UK national anthem, do you…?
Love it - 10%
Like it - 27%
Dislike it - 19%
Hate it - 25%
DK - 10%
So the figure is Love/Like is 37% v. 44% for dislike it/hate it.
I'm sure we're all shocked to learn that HYUFD was being disingenuous with a Scottish subsample.
So as I said the subsample shows a plurality of Scots like the National Anthem while only 44% of Scots dislike or hate it ie even fewer than the 45% of Scots who voted Yes to independence in 2014
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
That's rather self pitying. You insisted several times that the situation was odd, and that it said something essentially sinister about colonialism, based on your own personal view on what countries should be allowed to look like, eg they must be close to one another to have oversight of a territory (as I cannot think of another reason for confusion about it being 'odd' but that it is far away), which itself could be called odd and which, as pointed out, opens up so many existing countries to accusations they are 'odd' or should belong to someone else.
Dismissing people objecting to that as frothing is lame and tiresome. You may disagree with it, but people took issue with your rather severe interpretation of what constituted 'normal' nationhood or territoriality and explained why, you further stated your position, and people came back again.
That's debate, it doesn't make it 'frothing' because people objected to the proposition you put forth.
You are doggedly and a touch anally off the point. Again.
First, bum rap that I'm "self pitying" (as if!) or accusing everyone who disagrees with me or fails to get my point as frothing. That charge is leveled only at the ones who were frothing. We all know frothing when we see it.
Second, and most important, I did not say it was odd. I said it felt odd to me - and that it also felt odd (to me) that people did not find it odd.
And I offered an explanation for this (many people not finding it odd) - my explanation being that the (imo) odd concept of Britain "owning" places on the other side of the globe is normalized in people's minds due to our colonial history.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Bluest Blue in favour of spaffing money at a population of 2840.
Members of the mob that stormed the Capitol are telling police they felt President Trump told them to, potentially making him liable to criminal charges for incitement.
With more participants in the siege being arrested every day, explanations of their actions are emerging. One Kentucky man told the FBI that he went to Washington with his cousin and marched towards Congress because “President Trump said to do so”.
A retired Pennsylvania firefighter, charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police, said he believed he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, according to court documents seen by The Washington Post.
Jenna Ryan, a Dallas estate agent charged with illegally entering the Capitol, begged Mr Trump for a pardon on local television. “I thought I was following my president,” she said.
“I thought I was following what we were called to do . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”
The insistence that they were carrying out Mr Trump’s instructions could pose risks of criminal liability. Karl Racine, the Washington DC attorney-general, has said that he may charge those who addressed the crowd with incitement to violence. Mr Trump told them: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
Other speakers under investigation by Mr Racine include Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer who called for “trial by combat”, and Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, who implored them to “stand up and fight”.
The agitators’ explanations of their actions are certain to be brought up in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial as evidence that he incited the insurrection.
Forgive my ignorance, but can there be a class action for a defence?
I did see on twitter (albeit from a MAGA account) that Trump had effectively drafted these citizens and they carrying out the lawful orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Maybe a class pardon?
It's not going to wash. Some of the people involved in the insurrection committed both federal and state crimes. Even if Trump pardons all of them it won't cover their state crimes. There may be further evidence that shows criminal intent before the Trump speech. In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
D.C. isn't a state, so there were no state crimes committed during the insurrection.
Perhaps not during the insurrection, but in preparation for it, yes. If those acts were committed outside of DC.
IIRC crimes that cross state lines by their very nature become federal crimes.
If someone illegally manufactured an explosive device in Maryland, and transported it to Washington, and attempted to blow up the RNC HQ, then received a pardon for all Federal crimes, do you think Maryland would attempt a prosecution under state laws governing the manufacture and handling of explosives?
As an aside, have they even crossed a state line, since DC isn't a state?
Well, regardless of the status of DC, they have left Maryland without leaving the US...So it can't be purely Maryland State jurisdiction and must be Federal, I'd have thought?
Otherwise, any Maryland crims would just break for that DC border.....
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
The Argentine argument is just so bizarre. Their entire country basically consists of a bunch of European settlers who have annexed some land thousands of miles from their homeland, yet they object so violently to the Falkland Islanders who have done exactly the same thing. I do wish the UK would treat the Chagos Islanders' claim to live unmolested in their ancestral home with the same seriousness as they do that of the Falkland Islanders, though. The racial dimension to the disparity is pretty glaring.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Bluest Blue in favour of spaffing money at a population of 2840.
Typical Tory spaffer
Bigjohnowls in favour of selling out the rights of a whole population just because they are a long way away.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
It is 1,543 km from Port Stanley to Buenos Aires.
It is only 463 km from London to Dublin.
On Kirchner's logic the UK government has a greater claim to Ireland than Argentina has to the Falkland Islands
Kirchner continued squatting in the Presidency after she was ejected from office - very Trumpian. And she is up for criminal trial aiui.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Bluest Blue in favour of spaffing money at a population of 2840.
Rather obvious problem with that. The question didn't say WHICH the anthem is. Not something one can count on folk knowing. Jerusalem, for instance?
Even a plurality of Scots like it, I highly doubt that would be the case if they thought it was Jerusalem rather than GSTQ
What is the Scottish figure for love/like v. hate/dislike as a matter of interest? The weasel word 'plurality' makes me suspicious.
Did we ever find out from HYUFD?
Scottish subsample KLAXON.
Regarding the UK national anthem, do you…?
Love it - 10%
Like it - 27%
Dislike it - 19%
Hate it - 25%
DK - 10%
So the figure is Love/Like is 37% v. 44% for dislike it/hate it.
I'm sure we're all shocked to learn that HYUFD was being disingenuous with a Scottish subsample.
So as I said the subsample shows a plurality of Scots like the National Anthem while only 44% of Scots dislike or hate it ie even fewer than the 45% of Scots who voted Yes to independence in 2014
I think there's a strong case for making the Red Flag our national anthem. It's a great tune with some rousing lyrics, and who could object to its universal message of struggle and liberation?
Further to the FSM debate we had the other day, my girlfriend came home from work (at an East London School) tonight with two of the carrier bags of uncollected lunchtime food that the parents of FSM kids didn't want to collect. The person in charge was getting staff to take them rather than throw them in the bin
As seen by my own eyes, the contents were
Three large potatoes (to make jackets with I suppose) A small tin of tuna A tin of baked beans Two very small cheeses A loaf of sliced bread A large pack of cornflakes Small butters A banana
I think that was it. Not the best, not exactly a feast, but I think it would help those too poor to get by though. Parents were asking for vouchers instead, Maybe they don't want to come to the school because of Covid
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Bluest Blue in favour of spaffing money at a population of 2840.
Typical Tory spaffer
Bigjohnowls in favour of selling out the rights of a whole population just because they are a long way away.
Typical left winger?
Cant afford it, have some fiscal responsibility.
If they are that keen on being British get em over here picking fruit.
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Bluest Blue in favour of spaffing money at a population of 2840.
Typical Tory spaffer
3398 in the 2016 census. Have they had a particularly bad plague?
Rather obvious problem with that. The question didn't say WHICH the anthem is. Not something one can count on folk knowing. Jerusalem, for instance?
Even a plurality of Scots like it, I highly doubt that would be the case if they thought it was Jerusalem rather than GSTQ
What is the Scottish figure for love/like v. hate/dislike as a matter of interest? The weasel word 'plurality' makes me suspicious.
Did we ever find out from HYUFD?
Scottish subsample KLAXON.
Regarding the UK national anthem, do you…?
Love it - 10%
Like it - 27%
Dislike it - 19%
Hate it - 25%
DK - 10%
So the figure is Love/Like is 37% v. 44% for dislike it/hate it.
I'm sure we're all shocked to learn that HYUFD was being disingenuous with a Scottish subsample.
So as I said the subsample shows a plurality of Scots like the National Anthem while only 44% of Scots dislike or hate it ie even fewer than the 45% of Scots who voted Yes to independence in 2014
I think there's a strong case for making the Red Flag our national anthem. It's a great tune with some rousing lyrics, and who could object to its universal message of struggle and liberation?
I see that, while PB has spent the day frothing about the Falklands, the govt has been asked to help bailout Eurostar.
Those joke memes of a bricked up Chunnel might turn out to be true after all.
All I said was that I found our Falklands dominion "a bit odd". The frothing was a big surprise to me. Lessons learnt.
What's the argument for the Falklands remaining under British control?
Well the gist is 'cos that's what the islanders want." Fine, but as I was explaining this does not make it seem to me any less odd - and a little bit wrong - that Britain still has these hangover colonial possessions. I'm for agreeing some sort of compromise to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Will happen one day, I'd imagine.
There's a 'dispute' over the sovereignty of the Falklands in the same way that there's a 'dispute' over the winner of the US presidential election. We already did our healing with Argentina some time ago, I believe.
I'm afraid there is a dispute. It's disputed. 1982 settled it for a while - since winners of wars must have prizes - but not for good. I think something will be agreed in my lifetime and I'm no spring chicken.
In 2013, 99.8% of the voters of the Falklands answered 'Yes' to the following question, on a 92% turnout:
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Tell that to Kirchner who said, "It is as if a consortium of squatters had voted on whether to continue illegally occupying a building."
Kirchner, you say? That sounds like a good old indigenous South American name, so I'm sure she knows all about squatting.
Bluest Blue in favour of spaffing money at a population of 2840.
Comments
Comparing PB posters with what it accused to be state sponsored misinformation, is also rather weak, unless the BBC is pushing ant-Chinese vaccine speculation.
Regarding the UK national anthem, do you…?
Love it - 10%
Like it - 27%
Dislike it - 19%
Hate it - 25%
DK - 10%
So the figure is Love/Like is 37% v. 44% for dislike it/hate it.
I'm sure we're all shocked to learn that HYUFD was being disingenuous with a Scottish subsample.
Edit: and thankls to TSE who is honest enough and devolted tnough to reveal all ...
https://twitter.com/rbrharrison/status/1351239186855157761
Dismissing people objecting to that as frothing is lame and tiresome. You may disagree with it, but people took issue with your rather severe interpretation of what constituted 'normal' nationhood or territoriality and explained why, you further stated your position, and people came back again.
That's debate, it doesn't make it 'frothing' because people objected to the proposition you put forth.
Just ask Stuart Dickson.
Instead, they have taken the exact opposite approach of violence, threats, cutting them off from the mainland and consequently earned the deep and abiding hatred of the islanders as a result because they are even more useless than our lot of crooks and chancers, which is saying something.
Mind you, the Spanish themselves are no better in the way they’ve approached Gibraltar for the last 46 years.
OK, so now he sleeps with the fishes, but respet....
For Scotland it is in fact 'Regarding the UK national anthem, do you…?'
Love it - 10%
Like it - 27%
Dislike it - 19%
Hate it - 25%
DK - 19%
Real world: 44% of Scots feel negative towards GSTQ, 37% positive
HYUFD Numptyworld: 56% of Scots feel positive or neutral towards GSTQ
There isn't a Fisherfolk subsample unfortunately.
50% effective at catching the disease
78% effective in stopping symptoms
100% effective in stopping moderate or severe symptoms
It works! Yet the reporting here is how dodgy it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoronaVac#cite_note-JornaldaUSP-24
In short, they might drag Trump down with them but Trump is not saving all those people even it he is so inclined.
Kate Bingham said last year she would be happy with a vaccine at 40% efficacy.
I'm not expert, but I always thought there was a slight difference between the two situations, in that I thought Argentina essentially claims the Islands have always rightfully belonged to them (since the demise of the Spanish Empire) and that the British are squatters, whereas the Spanish really did sign away Gibraltar for ever (not that they stopped trying to recover it), but would like for it to be returned and/or the British are not fully adhering to the terms.
Six four is objectively very tall indeed. If you consider that "base camp" is five six - i.e. hardly any men are under that - you are 10 inches higher than this whereas with me, for example, it's only 4 inches. In this sense you are two and a half times my size.
Yes, there was an agreement signed, finally. But lots of Peruvians are still convinced they were robbed.
It would save France tonnes of money.
I remember this story from a few years ago
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Bolivia in its dispute with neighbouring Chile over access to the Pacific Ocean - a feud dating back to the late 19th Century.
Landlocked Bolivia lost access to the sea in 1884 after a war with Chile and has tried to regain it ever since.
The court said Chile was not obliged to negotiate granting Bolivia access.
The ruling, which comes after five years of deliberations, is final and binding.
Despite the final nature of the ruling, Bolivian President Evo Morales said "Bolivia will never give up"...
Despite having no access to the sea, Bolivia maintains a small navy and celebrates the Day of the Sea every year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45708671
FBI vets thousands of troops amid fears of insider attack on Biden inauguration
Extra checks to prevent repeat of 6 January attack on Capitol
National guard plays down fears of extremism within ranks
Thousands of military personnel guarding Joe Biden’s inauguration as US president on Wednesday are being vetted by the FBI amid fears of an insider attack.
The biggest ever security operation for a presidential transition has turned swaths of Washington into a fortress, barricades, razor wire and 7ft fences erected to prevent a repeat of the deadly 6 January attack on the US Capitol by a mob incited by Donald Trump.
National guard personnel train part-time while holding civilian jobs or attending college. Some 25,000 members – more than double the number at previous inaugurations – are pouring into Washington from across the country, at short notice.
There are concerns that some of the very people assigned to protect the city could present a threat to the incoming president and other dignitaries, the Associated Press reported. Their names will be fed through an FBI database for any evidence of connections to investigations or terrorism or other red flags.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/18/fbi-national-guard-biden-inauguration-trump-washington
Since nowhere has a claim to anywhere else due to mere proximity I'm surprised those who feel odd about colonial possessions don't simply advocate for independence for them.
Mind you, regardless of the technicalities of their case they have a right cheek to argue that while holding Ceuta and Melilla and describing them as ‘inviolable Spanish territory.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65t7gQtJqoY
As an aside, have they even crossed a state line, since DC isn't a state?
There are legally worse claims to disputed territories out there, to be sure. But nearly 200 years on from the reassertion of British sovereignty it really feels a bit late to be disrupting an entire population of settled status for generations and generations, or insisting that those people be forced to negotiate something they do not want to negotiate.
Compromise is usually a reasonable approach, but forcing people to compromise when they see no benefit to doing so is not really compromise at all.
I've always though the duress argument is an odd one to try to make today. Pretty sure all treaties like that were signed under duress, usually because your side lost a war. The idea you didn't immediately ignore a treaty the instant you felt you were strong enough to do so seems to be a pretty modern idea. Seems like a lot of treaties would be voided if we accepted the duress argument today.
They could always argue that jews and moors have been been allowed to reside there, which I recall a Gibraltarian poster stating was in violation of the treaty.
If the police stop your car, and find you have a crow bar and bolt cutters on board, Isuspect you might have trouble avoiding a "going equipped" charge.
'Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?'
It's scarcely possible to imagine a more decisive democratic mandate. To dispute it is much, much worse than Trumpian.
Certainly more poetic, depending on your view of Burns.
But it will make the job so much easier it's worth quite a bit more cost I should think.
Instead, move the G7 to the splendid isolation of Rockall.
As gesture of world progress and European cooperation (or visa versa) make Rockall the permanent site of all future summits, under joint co-sponsorship AND - sovereignty of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Scotland, Faroe Islands and the Audubon Society.
It is only 463 km from London to Dublin.
On Kirchner's logic the UK government has a greater claim to Ireland than Argentina has to the Falkland Islands
Mail'smedia reporting on Covid -Cases drop ? Pandemic over, wave beaten, when will you lift restrictions Boris !
Cases rise ? Panic, panic, NHS being overwhelmed, why didn't you act sooner Boris ?
With articles along both lines produced in the same day.
First, bum rap that I'm "self pitying" (as if!) or accusing everyone who disagrees with me or fails to get my point as frothing. That charge is leveled only at the ones who were frothing. We all know frothing when we see it.
Second, and most important, I did not say it was odd. I said it felt odd to me - and that it also felt odd (to me) that people did not find it odd.
And I offered an explanation for this (many people not finding it odd) - my explanation being that the (imo) odd concept of Britain "owning" places on the other side of the globe is normalized in people's minds due to our colonial history.
Such is my point and I commend it to you.
Typical Tory spaffer
Otherwise, any Maryland crims would just break for that DC border.....
I do wish the UK would treat the Chagos Islanders' claim to live unmolested in their ancestral home with the same seriousness as they do that of the Falkland Islanders, though. The racial dimension to the disparity is pretty glaring.
Typical left winger?
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1351230020392517632
As seen by my own eyes, the contents were
Three large potatoes (to make jackets with I suppose)
A small tin of tuna
A tin of baked beans
Two very small cheeses
A loaf of sliced bread
A large pack of cornflakes
Small butters
A banana
I think that was it. Not the best, not exactly a feast, but I think it would help those too poor to get by though. Parents were asking for vouchers instead, Maybe they don't want to come to the school because of Covid
If they are that keen on being British get em over here picking fruit.