Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
Nope. What is said after the jury is sequestered is neither here nor there because they won't hear it. And courts generally are pretty robust about this sort of thing, American courts (who have something called freedom of speech, something our Lord Justice Clerk seems somewhat hostile to) in particular.
This came from Judge Cahill, who is overseeing the trial:
Quick question for the PBers on here, especially the ones with a Scottish legal background or knowledge (ahem DavidL....). I am dealing with a rather unscrupulous outfit based in Scotland who provide secretarial services. I signed up in the belief that I would be on a paid trial but then found out that they had continued automatically (I had stated in e-mails to them before I paid their invoice that I specifically did not want an automatic extension because my previous trial with them had not gone that well). I cancelled the service but they claimed they were owed 60 days notice. Moreover, I then found out they backdated the start of the trial from mid January to the week before Christmas on the basis of an e-mail sent by their salesperson which they claim constitutes the start of the agreement and which is ambiguous to say the least. Just to say, I had not signed any contract with them.
Any suggestions as to the best course of action?
It should be a matter of fact when they provided secretarial services to you and when they didn't. A contract doesn't need to be a formal document, however. If you have had exchanges of correspondence which show an agreement then that will be binding. An express stipulation that there was to be no extension may well be taken as evidence of notice, even if they can incorporate a 60 day notice condition into their contract, which is doubtful. If this was a consumer contract from your perspective then they would have to come to your court, which is unlikely. If it was a business contract they could sue in Scotland which would be a pain for you in having to defend it. I would tell them to get lost. If they take it further choose a solicitor in either Scotland or England (depending on the jurisdiction question) and give them the relevant paperwork to look over. Sometimes if people are trying it on a firm solicitors letter setting out the position can bring things to an end.
Thanks David, that is much appreciated. It's from a business perspective so it sounds like like a Scottish solicitor then. The e-mail exchange is very ambiguous but I sent the money on January 13th which, in my mind, is when the trial started. There are e-mails from me beforehand which state my agreement with them was not to have an automatic extension but a trial. In hindsight, I should have been more forceful about the reply to their e-mail which stated "you can cancel at any time" but didn't specifically recognised about the automatic rollout. When I pointed out to them that they were taking automatic deductions against what I had stated before, they stopped the deductions but are now threatening to send me to the collections team.
I think from now on, I will stick to doing business in rUK......
That would be the same Gavin Williamson who was May's trusted lieutenant for most of her time in office? Johnson is an excellent PM doing a good job, far superior to his predecessor in every way, so your blind spot on him because you disagree with his position on Brexit is telling. This Cabinet is much better in almost every way than the one that came before it, you claim you want the "best" but support Phil Hammond who absolutely undermined his own government and refused to fund the development of Customs facilities despite it being his government's policy to leave the Customs Union.
I'm not sure that being Theresa May's trusted lieutenant is much of a recommendation. She wasn't exactly notable for good judgement in choosing her close circle.
And no, Phil Hammond didn't undermine the government or refuse to fund Customs facilities.
Oh really?
Considering his government's policy was that no deal was better than a bad deal, he should have after three years notice been fully prepared for a no deal WTO Brexit by 2019.
Please can you point out where the customs facilities he paid for were by 2019?
Don't ask me, here's the man himself:
. And I reject the accusation that I blocked spending on no deal. We spent quite a lot of money on no deal. I think £4bn overall, during the period that I was in office.
Actually, Boris Johnson’s Government has been in power for 15 months now and we are no better prepared for no deal than we were in July 2019. The work hasn’t been done. I’m hearing from the business representative organisations and other bodies that monitor these things, that the work hasn’t been done. There’s still a massive gap between the identified needs in a no deal situation and what the Government has delivered. It isn’t just about building a barrier down the middle of the M20. It’s about recruiting and training enough people to do customs paperwork. It’s about getting business to engage and understand the challenges that it’ll face on day one.
What I tried to do was to steer the programme as far as possible to focusing on areas where we knew, deal or no deal, we would need this investment, of which there were quite a lot. Whether or not there was a deal, we were always going to need additional customs infrastructure and capacity at ports, so that was worth investing in. There was no nugatory expenditure there, but some of the things that I was invited to support in the name of preparing for no deal were just ludicrous gestures.
Page 32. The whole interview is a great read, showing just how much more competent, thoughtful, serious and honest he is, compared with the vindictive clowns who hounded him and the other sensible ones out of the party, exactly because they were sensible
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
Were we not expecting Khan to win this on the first round at one point? 41% for Labour in London doesn't seem that special although it will clearly be enough to win.
The LibDems must be regretting not trying harder with a celebrity candidate.
The Tories must be regretting not trying harder to find a candidate.
They could have had an absolutely brilliant candidate. Instead they hounded him out of the party.
That's what happens when MPs vote against the whip on a matter of confidence.
Did you object to Major expelling Rupert Allason so vociferously?
If it was a vote of confidence, Boris would have resigned.
Or call an election. He called an election, but Opposition MPs voted it down remember?
I might consider a Tory vote with Mercer at the helm. Seems a decent bloke
I think he's totally unrealistic. He was asking Johnson for something he obviously couldn't give due to the situation in Northern Ireland.
It does, though, reflect a Johnson problem. He'd clearly made promises to Mercer which Mercer saw as copper-bottomed, but which weren't. Johnson has a tendency to make unconditional and lavish promises to people when convenient to him, and immediately withdraw them the moment it isn't. It makes him a deeply unreliable partner in all sorts of ways.
In other words, Boris will say anything to be liked on first encounter. So he's popular. He's incapable of following through, which is why he ends up letting everyone down. Always has done, no reason to think he can change.
BoJo fans are like the girlfriend who thinks the local lothario means it when he says he really loves her and means it this time.
The bed in the spare room is ready when you need it, ducks. Because it's inevitable that you will.
EXCL: Johnny Mercer has called the British government “the most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in”, in his first interview since being sacked as Veterans Minister last night. Listen to it on @TimesRadio in a few minutes.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
Nope. What is said after the jury is sequestered is neither here nor there because they won't hear it. And courts generally are pretty robust about this sort of thing, American courts (who have something called freedom of speech, something our Lord Justice Clerk seems somewhat hostile to) in particular.
This came from Judge Cahill, who is overseeing the trial:
This Boris administration cannot end well, all the evidence is there, it’s a question of when and how bad it will be when all the skullduggery catches up with him.
It may not. We need an effective and credible opposition for that to happen.
Yes. Thats brewing nicely.
We’ll also need more Conservatives to stand up, call out his nonsense and say enough is enough. Too many go along or enable his skullduggery because it gives them a whiff of power.
Or the opposition needs to get it's act together
Curious. Really curious. You want us to save you from yourself.
Just making the obvious point that to remove Boris and HMG you need a credible opposition
Quite right. We’re getting there. Sounds like when we do, we’ll be we’ll liberating you. In the meantime you’ll feel better if you push back on his excess.
That would be the same Gavin Williamson who was May's trusted lieutenant for most of her time in office? Johnson is an excellent PM doing a good job, far superior to his predecessor in every way, so your blind spot on him because you disagree with his position on Brexit is telling. This Cabinet is much better in almost every way than the one that came before it, you claim you want the "best" but support Phil Hammond who absolutely undermined his own government and refused to fund the development of Customs facilities despite it being his government's policy to leave the Customs Union.
I'm not sure that being Theresa May's trusted lieutenant is much of a recommendation. She wasn't exactly notable for good judgement in choosing her close circle.
And no, Phil Hammond didn't undermine the government or refuse to fund Customs facilities.
Oh really?
Considering his government's policy was that no deal was better than a bad deal, he should have after three years notice been fully prepared for a no deal WTO Brexit by 2019.
Please can you point out where the customs facilities he paid for were by 2019?
Don't ask me, here's the man himself:
. And I reject the accusation that I blocked spending on no deal. We spent quite a lot of money on no deal. I think £4bn overall, during the period that I was in office.
Actually, Boris Johnson’s Government has been in power for 15 months now and we are no better prepared for no deal than we were in July 2019. The work hasn’t been done. I’m hearing from the business representative organisations and other bodies that monitor these things, that the work hasn’t been done. There’s still a massive gap between the identified needs in a no deal situation and what the Government has delivered. It isn’t just about building a barrier down the middle of the M20. It’s about recruiting and training enough people to do customs paperwork. It’s about getting business to engage and understand the challenges that it’ll face on day one.
What I tried to do was to steer the programme as far as possible to focusing on areas where we knew, deal or no deal, we would need this investment, of which there were quite a lot. Whether or not there was a deal, we were always going to need additional customs infrastructure and capacity at ports, so that was worth investing in. There was no nugatory expenditure there, but some of the things that I was invited to support in the name of preparing for no deal were just ludicrous gestures.
Page 32. The whole interview is a great read, showing just how much more competent, thoughtful, serious and honest he is, compared with the vindictive clowns who hounded him and the other sensible ones out of the party, exactly because they were sensible
The whole interview is an interesting read and shows how absolutely unfit for office he was.
Where are the people he hired and trained to process customs paperwork? The places he built for the customs paperwork to be processed? If he did spend the money then those staff should be available today, those locations should be available today - instead they're still being built because the spending only began once he was prised out of office.
Amongst other clangers that show how unfit for office he was, take this example on Page 14:
Look, what happened, I was completely stunned by the speech that she madeat the Conservative Party Conference in October 2016. I hadn’t seen the relevant part of it in advance. I’d had no input to the speech. Nick Timothy kept me completely away from it. I did see some text on the economy the day before, but I had no idea that she was going to describe Brexit in the hardest possible terms.
I was absolutely horrified by what I was hearing. All I remember thinking was, ‘There will be a television camera that will be on your face. If you move a muscle, it will be the story on the front page of every newspaper tomorrow.’ I remember I wasn’t even really listening to her. I was just sitting there. I remember exactly where I was sitting: on the end of a row, to the side of the stage, looking up diagonally at the stage, looking up at her. I just remember focusing my entire energy on maintaining a rictus half-smile, and trying not to show any reaction at all, and then get out of the room without speaking to any journalists. I was completely and utterly horrified by what I felt was almost a coup: a definition of Brexit without any proper Cabinet consultation at all. Page 14.
Not only is it ridiculous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted "Brexit Means Brexit" and was so incompetent at his job that he asked for no more information than that on how he should be planning - if he had the slightest iota of credibility or dignity he would have resigned after that speech. That was government policy - and it wasn't especially hard terms, it was the terms debated in the Referendum - and he was "horrified" by it?
If he was incapable of supporting and planning those terms, and he was, if he was so horrified by government policy he should have resigned and opposed it from the backbenches.
Instead he sat there with a 'rictus half-smile' then spent years undermining government policy.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
Their attack on black Government ministers was because they were black. They were "Racial Gatekeepers".
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I'm suggesting that that is currently how too many behave, and not drawing that implication. Consider Dawn Butler vs Kemi Badenoch, for one.
I think that such a tactic may result in some marginalising themselves eventually. The country is not how it was several decades ago, and that needs to be recognised.
Consider, for example UK withdrawal from the EU Parliament. For UK MEPs POC were 6-7 out of 75 ie just under 10%. After we have left the remainder of the MEPs fr the EU-27 are 24 POC out of 705 ie 3.5%.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I think calling a black Minister a "racial gatekeeper" is disgusting racist language that should not be used.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
You almost sound as if you WANT the whole trial overturned.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
I didn't follow it closely, but possibly not. But it's hard to have too much sympathy for Chauvin.
Whereas, I thought it was very odd that the cop who shoved that newspaper seller to the ground was prosecuted for manslaughter here. I always thought a jury would say not guilty. Even if that was the straw that broke the camels back, very hard to expect a jury to decide that the perpetrator should be considered guilty of manslaughter.
Ultimately trial by jury is a form of democracy. And I generally think it's pretty good.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I think calling a black Minister a "racial gatekeeper" is disgusting racist language that should not be used.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I'm suggesting that that is currently how too many behave, and not drawing that implication. Consider Dawn Butler vs Kemi Badenoch, for one.
I think that such a tactic may result in some marginalising themselves eventually. The country is not how it was several decades ago, and that needs to be recognised.
Consider, for example UK withdrawal from the EU Parliament. For UK MEPs POC were 6-7 out of 75 ie just under 10%. After we have left the remainder of the MEPs fr the EU-27 are 24 POC out of 705 ie 3.5%.
Time also for a reminder that it is quite likely that the Conservatives will be the first to offer the electorate a leader of colour, whilst Labour is still limping along on its 19th or 20th successive white bloke. And that the voters will then put said person back into bat at the following general election.
One shudders to think what will happen to the metropolitan left, with its narratives about deep, systemic racism absolutely everywhere in the state and society, if that comes to pass. Some collective fit of mouth-foaming apoplexy I would imagine.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I think calling a black Minister a "racial gatekeeper" is disgusting racist language that should not be used.
Don't you?
Indeed. It's nice to imagine that Kemi could become the first black Prime Minister while Dawn Butler is stuck pushing her divisive tosh from the Opposition backbenches and her party continues to be led by ever-fading photocopies of Ed Miliband...
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
I didn't follow it closely, but possibly not. But it's hard to have too much sympathy for Chauvin.
Whereas, I thought it was very odd that the cop who shoved that newspaper seller to the ground was prosecuted for manslaughter here. I always thought a jury would say not guilty. Even if that was the straw that broke the camels back, very hard to expect a jury to decide that the perpetrator should be considered guilty of manslaughter.
Ultimately trial by jury is a form of democracy. And I generally think it's pretty good.
I'd agree with the jury part. I have to admit I am in two minds re Chauvin - I think he did it but I'm not sure re the beyond reasonable doubt bit given the amount of drugs in GF's system.
BREAKING: Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has announced that aid to China will be cut by 95% to less than £1 million.
I mean, what the hell are we giving any aid to China for? I want to support our aid program but all too often it is its own worst enemy.
Edit and if we are cutting it by 95% that presumably means we gave them £20m last year? Just incredible.
It seems strange though. Whether it's £20 million (price of a large London house) or £1 million (price of a small London house), it's absolute peanuts to the Chinese, and they wouldn't notice. I wonder if it's something very specific that the aid is for, probably in our own interest.
Might be funding for some of their brightest and best to come to our Universities, I suppose. But we still have better uses for our money. The abolition of DFiD really didn't come too soon.
On the contrary - this is what comes of letting other departments spend aid money.
If you look at what is being funded in China by the UK aid budget - its British council stuff & BEIS.
We will see more of this in future as aid money becomes less about poverty and more about diplomacy.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Biden couldn't afford to say anything less. There's the rational thing he should say and then the political one. He chose the latter.
Maxine Waters could be interesting though. If she is still in Congress post-2022 and the GOP wins, a surefire candidate for them to launch proceedings against.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I'm suggesting that that is currently how too many behave, and not drawing that implication. Consider Dawn Butler vs Kemi Badenoch, for one.
I think that such a tactic may result in some marginalising themselves eventually. The country is not how it was several decades ago, and that needs to be recognised.
Consider, for example UK withdrawal from the EU Parliament. For UK MEPs POC were 6-7 out of 75 ie just under 10%. After we have left the remainder of the MEPs fr the EU-27 are 24 POC out of 705 ie 3.5%.
Time also for a reminder that it is quite likely that the Conservatives will be the first to offer the electorate a leader of colour, whilst Labour is still limping along on its 19th or 20th successive white bloke. And that the voters will then put said person back into bat at the following general election.
One shudders to think what will happen to the metropolitan left, with its narratives about deep, systemic racism absolutely everywhere in the state and society, if that comes to pass. Some collective fit of mouth-foaming apoplexy I would imagine.
They'll probably act like it had never happened.
If the day ever does finally arrive that the Labour Party elects a female leader I imagine much will be made of it being a "first" when its no such thing. If a female Labour leader were ever to become PM many in the Labour party would like to act as if that were the country's first female PM.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
I didn't follow it closely, but possibly not. But it's hard to have too much sympathy for Chauvin.
Whereas, I thought it was very odd that the cop who shoved that newspaper seller to the ground was prosecuted for manslaughter here. I always thought a jury would say not guilty. Even if that was the straw that broke the camels back, very hard to expect a jury to decide that the perpetrator should be considered guilty of manslaughter.
Ultimately trial by jury is a form of democracy. And I generally think it's pretty good.
I'd agree with the jury part. I have to admit I am in two minds re Chauvin - I think he did it but I'm not sure re the beyond reasonable doubt bit given the amount of drugs in GF's system.
I also didn't follow the trial closely enough to evaluate the prosecution's performance, but frankly the defence had a mountain to climb based on the video evidence alone. Chauvin could have chosen to get off the neck of the restrained man at any point in those 9 minutes, but he didn't, and so he damned himself.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I think calling a black Minister a "racial gatekeeper" is disgusting racist language that should not be used.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I'm suggesting that that is currently how too many behave, and not drawing that implication. Consider Dawn Butler vs Kemi Badenoch, for one.
I think that such a tactic may result in some marginalising themselves eventually. The country is not how it was several decades ago, and that needs to be recognised.
Consider, for example UK withdrawal from the EU Parliament. For UK MEPs POC were 6-7 out of 75 ie just under 10%. After we have left the remainder of the MEPs fr the EU-27 are 24 POC out of 705 ie 3.5%.
Time also for a reminder that it is quite likely that the Conservatives will be the first to offer the electorate a leader of colour, whilst Labour is still limping along on its 19th or 20th successive white bloke. And that the voters will then put said person back into bat at the following general election.
One shudders to think what will happen to the metropolitan left, with its narratives about deep, systemic racism absolutely everywhere in the state and society, if that comes to pass. Some collective fit of mouth-foaming apoplexy I would imagine.
I'd expect that part to dissolve away, just as the UK Greens are dissolving away.
Both are painting themselves into a corner with nowhere to go.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
You almost sound as if you WANT the whole trial overturned.
No, I want a fair trial and a verdict that sticks. That applies no matter how odious the defender or how controversial his or her crimes. And, in the case of Chauvin, I think that's the only way to achieve lasting change across America rather than driving fresh conspiracies. A retrial would throw that into question again.
As an aside, I don't know if you're being serious with your comment or think you're just being funny but we need to get back to having the maturity to take dispassionate evidence-based positions on controversial issues, together with the courage to debate them, and not use them to virtue-signal or insinuate about others, or we're going down a dark road and will be in real trouble as a society.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Neither of them are reasonable doubts.
Remember that he has been found guilty of manslaughter, which is roughly what "unintentional murder" means.
EXCL: Johnny Mercer has called the British government “the most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in”, in his first interview since being sacked as Veterans Minister last night. Listen to it on @TimesRadio in a few minutes.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Biden couldn't afford to say anything less. There's the rational thing he should say and then the political one. He chose the latter.
Maxine Waters could be interesting though. If she is still in Congress post-2022 and the GOP wins, a surefire candidate for them to launch proceedings against.
Yes, you're probably right.
I view this through a British lens, which is more reserved and less judiciously political.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
Not sure there's much space for "big on climate change". Currently the UK Govt 2030 target is -68% and 2035 is -78% on CO2 since 1990.
EU just upgraded their next target to -55% for 2030.
They only have Tories failing to meet targets - which is what they are saying, but not very covincingly.
There may be space for chasing welfare standards towards more Euro levels.
How does he drop the 'Woke crap' when his backbenchers are full of crap, woke, sometimes thick, foghorns - launching attacks on Black Government Ministers?
I don't understand your last few words. Are you suggesting the opposition (the clue's in the name) shouldn't launch attacks on Black Government Ministers, and by implication reserve their attacks for non-Black GMs?
I think calling a black Minister a "racial gatekeeper" is disgusting racist language that should not be used.
Don't you?
There's nothing more racist than an anti-racist.
And nothing more anti-racist than a racist?
I see it as a horseshoe curve - like communists and fascists they can meet on extremism at the top.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Neither of them are reasonable doubts.
Remember that he has been found guilty of manslaughter, which is roughly what "unintentional murder" means.
US English is not as other Englishes.
NYT "After deliberating for about 10 hours over two days, the jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the killing of George Floyd."
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Neither of them are reasonable doubts.
Remember that he has been found guilty of manslaughter, which is roughly what "unintentional murder" means.
US English is not as other Englishes.
Is murder 1 basically what we call murder and everything else is more akin to manslaughter?
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Neither of them are reasonable doubts.
Remember that he has been found guilty of manslaughter, which is roughly what "unintentional murder" means.
US English is not as other Englishes.
Is murder 1 basically what we call murder and everything else is more akin to manslaughter?
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes. In the circumstances of the evidence being available filming the events then the jury have to ask themselves:
(1) Have the elements of the offence been made out in principle? Well the answer is yes, otherwise the judge would have kicked it out at the close of the prosecution. Watch the video (if you can bear to).
(2) Has a defence been put forward which might be true? The medical evidence allowed the jury to take the view that the actions of the officer were the cause of the death, and if there had been a credible alternative there would be have been decent medical evidence to that effect. There wasn't.
(3) As a general rule if you are guilty and would be given an impossible time in cross examination you don't give evidence. He didn't.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
His comment came after the jury had been sequestered.
I notice in your quotes from the judge, you omitted this one. “ a congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot..."
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Neither of them are reasonable doubts.
Remember that he has been found guilty of manslaughter, which is roughly what "unintentional murder" means.
US English is not as other Englishes.
NYT "After deliberating for about 10 hours over two days, the jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the killing of George Floyd."
In an English court once the guilty verdict was in on the most serious charge no verdict would be taken on the others. They are alternatives not additions. US law has its own logic. Personally I think taking multiple verdicts on the same facts is legally untidy but I'm not American.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Biden couldn't afford to say anything less. There's the rational thing he should say and then the political one. He chose the latter.
Maxine Waters could be interesting though. If she is still in Congress post-2022 and the GOP wins, a surefire candidate for them to launch proceedings against.
Yes, you're probably right.
I view this through a British lens, which is more reserved and less judiciously political.
Think you really SHOULD say, "I view this through a British lens, which is OSTENSIBLY more reserved and less judiciously political."
Seeing has how English & British history is replete with examples of politically-inspired legal prosecutions and verdicts. Just saying.
As for Biden's statement re: the Floyd verdict, pretty clear POTUS was getting ahead of the curve, just in case the verdict on murder counts was NOT guilty.
Which would have resulted in massive civil unrest across the USA. Which he wanted to curb as much as possible.
Unlike his predecessor, who of course would have thrown more gasoline on the fire, as per usual.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
I didn't follow it closely, but possibly not. But it's hard to have too much sympathy for Chauvin.
Whereas, I thought it was very odd that the cop who shoved that newspaper seller to the ground was prosecuted for manslaughter here. I always thought a jury would say not guilty. Even if that was the straw that broke the camels back, very hard to expect a jury to decide that the perpetrator should be considered guilty of manslaughter.
Ultimately trial by jury is a form of democracy. And I generally think it's pretty good.
I'd agree with the jury part. I have to admit I am in two minds re Chauvin - I think he did it but I'm not sure re the beyond reasonable doubt bit given the amount of drugs in GF's system.
What the flying f*ck does the amount of drugs in Floyd's system have to do with it? It was a question of whether or not Chauvin knelt on the man's neck, ignoring his pleas, until several minutes after he stopped moving. "Reasonable force" is not qualified by "reasonable force against a healthy person at peak physical fitness, anyone with drugs in their system or health conditions can take their chances".
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Biden couldn't afford to say anything less. There's the rational thing he should say and then the political one. He chose the latter.
Maxine Waters could be interesting though. If she is still in Congress post-2022 and the GOP wins, a surefire candidate for them to launch proceedings against.
Yes, you're probably right.
I view this through a British lens, which is more reserved and less judiciously political.
Think you really SHOULD say, "I view this through a British lens, which is OSTENSIBLY more reserved and less judiciously political."
Seeing has how English & British history is replete with examples of politically-inspired legal prosecutions and verdicts. Just saying.
As for Biden's statement re: the Floyd verdict, pretty clear POTUS was getting ahead of the curve, just in case the verdict on murder counts was NOT guilty.
Which would have resulted in massive civil unrest across the USA. Which he wanted to curb as much as possible.
Unlike his predecessor, who of course would have thrown more gasoline on the fire, as per usual.
The fact that President of the United States is not someone who throws gasoline on the first really should be unremarkable, but it is still a major relief.
Trump was encouraging and instigating the violence on the streets last year - and it was rather sad that some people here thought that violence he'd encouraged was a reason for him to be re-elected.
Thank goodness America made the right call. Hopefully it can begin to heal and the midterms don't screw things back up again.
Apparently from a Yougov poll. Perhaps a policy the Greens could adopt.
"@PoliticsForAlI NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
The urban bear could add to the urban fox. I am still waiting for Jeremy Corbyn to be made MFH for the Islington Foot and Stoke Newington Foxhounds. Diane Abbot would make a good terrierman. Adding bears to the fun might bring in Lady Nugee on horseback with an elephant gun.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I don't think Chauvin will get off on appeal although the 3rd degree murder charge could be rescinded if a similar case involved a cop convicted of shooting a woman dead in Minnesota is overturned (the appeal decision is coming up). That still leaves him with the 2nd degree murder charge.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Yes, of course they did.
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
I think he did it, it's the reasonable doubt bit. Two things in particular (1) the amount of drugs in GF's system and (2) when the angle of the footage of scene was changed, it looked like Chauvin was not kneeling on his neck but his shoulder area.
Neither of them are reasonable doubts.
Remember that he has been found guilty of manslaughter, which is roughly what "unintentional murder" means.
US English is not as other Englishes.
NYT "After deliberating for about 10 hours over two days, the jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the killing of George Floyd."
In an English court once the guilty verdict was in on the most serious charge no verdict would be taken on the others. They are alternatives not additions. US law has its own logic. Personally I think taking multiple verdicts on the same facts is legally untidy but I'm not American.
I think the most serious charge, the second-degree murder one, was concomittant on being committed while committing another felony, which would require the jury to find Chauvin guilty on one of the other charges to find him guilty on that one.
Apparently from a Yougov poll. Perhaps a policy the Greens could adopt.
"@PoliticsForAlI NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
The urban bear could add to the urban fox. I am still waiting for Jeremy Corbyn to be made MFH for the Islington Foot and Stoke Newington Foxhounds. Diane Abbot would make a good terrierman. Adding bears to the fun might bring in Lady Nugee on horseback with an elephant gun.
Here in Seattle we do have some urban bears. Typically found on the suburban fringes, checking out the garbage cans when nuts & berries are a bit scare in the woods.
Few years ago a young bear was seen swimming across Puget Sound from west to east, unfortunately ended up smack in high-density suburbs. After a few days, game wardens tracked him down and relocated him up in the mountains.
Appears he was looking for a new territory anyway, and found one after some adventures. Something to tell his grandkids!
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
Back on topic, it's interesting to note how, contrary to other polls, the 15% "Other" vote seems to have been drawn from the Khan vote which in the ComRes poll is 41% (down 3 from 2016).
Bailey trails on 28% (down 7 on Goldsmith's first round vote) so it's a 2% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Among the also-rans, Porritt is on 8% and Berry on 6% and the best of the rest is YouTube "personality" Niko Omilana who will apparently get 5% of the vote. It would be incredible if Omilana did that well but we'll see in a couple of weeks.
Apparently from a Yougov poll. Perhaps a policy the Greens could adopt.
"@PoliticsForAlI NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
The urban bear could add to the urban fox. I am still waiting for Jeremy Corbyn to be made MFH for the Islington Foot and Stoke Newington Foxhounds. Diane Abbot would make a good terrierman. Adding bears to the fun might bring in Lady Nugee on horseback with an elephant gun.
Here in Seattle we do have some urban bears. Typically found on the suburban fringes, checking out the garbage cans when nuts & berries are a bit scare in the woods.
Few years ago a young bear was seen swimming across Puget Sound from west to east, unfortunately ended up smack in high-density suburbs. After a few days, game wardens tracked him down and relocated him up in the mountains.
Appears he was looking for a new territory anyway, and found one after some adventures. Something to tell his grandkids!
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
"they are what they are"
It isnt some declared statement of fact that cant be questioned. They do have a lot in common in the sense that there are those using the situation to push for a society theyve always dreamed of, often based on models that are more about the modellers assumptions than anything else.
The idea that we can reduce carbon to such an extent and it not have massive costs is my contention. This stuff aint free.
Apparently from a Yougov poll. Perhaps a policy the Greens could adopt.
"@PoliticsForAlI NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
The urban bear could add to the urban fox. I am still waiting for Jeremy Corbyn to be made MFH for the Islington Foot and Stoke Newington Foxhounds. Diane Abbot would make a good terrierman. Adding bears to the fun might bring in Lady Nugee on horseback with an elephant gun.
Here in Seattle we do have some urban bears. Typically found on the suburban fringes, checking out the garbage cans when nuts & berries are a bit scare in the woods.
Few years ago a young bear was seen swimming across Puget Sound from west to east, unfortunately ended up smack in high-density suburbs. After a few days, game wardens tracked him down and relocated him up in the mountains.
Appears he was looking for a new territory anyway, and found one after some adventures. Something to tell his grandkids!
We very occasionally get bears here in the NYC 'burbs. Usually in Connecticut or Jersey, much much rarer here in Westchester County. We do have plenty of deer, which I've seen on our street once or twice, and there are coyotes around: we think one tried to get one of our cats through the window screen at the back of our house one hot summer night a few years back.
Apparently from a Yougov poll. Perhaps a policy the Greens could adopt.
"@PoliticsForAlI NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
The urban bear could add to the urban fox. I am still waiting for Jeremy Corbyn to be made MFH for the Islington Foot and Stoke Newington Foxhounds. Diane Abbot would make a good terrierman. Adding bears to the fun might bring in Lady Nugee on horseback with an elephant gun.
Apparently from a Yougov poll. Perhaps a policy the Greens could adopt.
"@PoliticsForAlI NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
The urban bear could add to the urban fox. I am still waiting for Jeremy Corbyn to be made MFH for the Islington Foot and Stoke Newington Foxhounds. Diane Abbot would make a good terrierman. Adding bears to the fun might bring in Lady Nugee on horseback with an elephant gun.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
"they are what they are"
It isnt some declared statement of fact that cant be questioned. They do have a lot in common in the sense that there are those using the situation to push for a society theyve always dreamed of, often based on models that are more about the modellers assumptions than anything else.
The idea that we can reduce carbon to such an extent and it not have massive costs is my contention. This stuff aint free.
We can, so long as the way we do so is smart.
If we try to do so by listening to the policies of the "Greens" or "XR" or "Greenpeace" etc we would be devastated.
If we do so as we are, by using clean technologies to replace dirty ones, then that works.
We've already reduced our emission by over 40% from 1990 levels. In the same time we've increased the size of our economy by over 70% in real terms. That is a remarkable transformation that is continuing year on year yet if you listen to the extreme left you'd think we hadn't done anything yet.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
His comment came after the jury had been sequestered.
I notice in your quotes from the judge, you omitted this one. “ a congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot..."
Yes, that's the second time you've said that.
I agree that the congresswoman's opinion shouldn't be significant. But that's not the issue.
The issue is that it gives the defence credible grounds for a re-trial, which is precisely what the judge said.
After being out and about at the weekend I thought that I should give myself a Covid test, just in case. My first time.
What an unpleasant experience. First I felt like I was going to make myself vomit, then I had a sneezing fit. Wor Lass watched the whole thing and decided not to bother with the test.
After being out and about at the weekend I thought that I should give myself a Covid test, just in case. My first time.
What an unpleasant experience. First I felt like I was going to make myself vomit, then I had a sneezing fit. Wor Lass watched the whole thing and decided not to bother with the test.
Happily, the test was negative.
I had exactly the same today. Throat bit was ok. Nose bit was bloody horrible: they stick it right up to the top of the bridge of your nose.
My eyes watered, and I've been having sneezing fits all day - it disturbed the lining of my nose and I'd already been suffering from hayfever.
I won't go anywhere or do anything that requires that as a choice in future.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
I mostly agree though I'd claim human ingenuity as the correct terminology. Human ingenuity created the problem, human ingenuity will solve it.
We need to change our consumption model rather than the level of consumption. De-carbonising the economy will be a big step - in energy generation we are already making huge advances and anything that can further this should be encouraged.
I'm not sure about "building new roads" - a co-ordinated energy efficient transport policy does mean more public transport especially trains (including trams and light rail). It also means recognising the future of work as less commuting and business travel.
The "elephant in the room" is while I can see most of Europe and even (in time) the USA taking up this new economic model, what of China, India and the rest? We can't afford to sit smugly by and claim we're all right because we aren't. The impact of climate change will be felt by all however "green" individual nations and indeed regions may be.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
There's a lot of bullshit flying around at the moment, on both climate change and wokeism. They are the new secular religions of the 21stC.
It's our duty to call it out even though, predictably, we'll be call deniers or closet bigots by some for doing so.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
"they are what they are"
It isnt some declared statement of fact that cant be questioned. They do have a lot in common in the sense that there are those using the situation to push for a society theyve always dreamed of, often based on models that are more about the modellers assumptions than anything else.
The idea that we can reduce carbon to such an extent and it not have massive costs is my contention. This stuff aint free.
We can, so long as the way we do so is smart.
If we try to do so by listening to the policies of the "Greens" or "XR" or "Greenpeace" etc we would be devastated.
If we do so as we are, by using clean technologies to replace dirty ones, then that works.
We've already reduced our emission by over 40% from 1990 levels. In the same time we've increased the size of our economy by over 70% in real terms. That is a remarkable transformation that is continuing year on year yet if you listen to the extreme left you'd think we hadn't done anything yet.
From moving electricity generation from coal to natural gas...
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
There's a lot of bullshit flying around at the moment, on both climate change and wokeism. They are the new secular religions of the 21stC.
It's our duty to call it out even though, predictably, we'll be call deniers or closet bigots by some for doing so.
Parts of the right have their own political correct dogma and have their own cancel culture, together with some of the stuff on parts of the left it really feels we’ve taken a backward step in terms of freedom of expression. A sort of new 1950s.
Off topic, and slightly sensitively, I think Biden and other Democratic politicians like AOC, and in particular Maxine Waters, are stupid to have commented on the Chauvin trial.
I think Chauvin deserves everything he gets but by Maxine Waters saying that protesters should “get more confrontational” if was acquitted she can credibly be argued to have influenced the jury's decision, and has thus opened up an avenue of appeal for him.
In extremis, it could see the whole trial overturned.
There is next to no chance that media/political noises off will lead to the trial being overturned. It's pretty well established both sides of the Atlantic that a properly instructed jury can and will ignore such things.
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
So you agree with me that Democratic politicians have been irresponsible then? Here's what Judge Cahill said - he certainly didn't say there is next to no chance of that:
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
I think there's a massive difference between what Waters said (before the verdict) and what Biden and Harris said after it.
Indeed, but Biden was commenting on it before the verdict as well.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Biden couldn't afford to say anything less. There's the rational thing he should say and then the political one. He chose the latter.
Maxine Waters could be interesting though. If she is still in Congress post-2022 and the GOP wins, a surefire candidate for them to launch proceedings against.
Yes, you're probably right.
I view this through a British lens, which is more reserved and less judiciously political.
Think you really SHOULD say, "I view this through a British lens, which is OSTENSIBLY more reserved and less judiciously political."
Seeing has how English & British history is replete with examples of politically-inspired legal prosecutions and verdicts. Just saying.
As for Biden's statement re: the Floyd verdict, pretty clear POTUS was getting ahead of the curve, just in case the verdict on murder counts was NOT guilty.
Which would have resulted in massive civil unrest across the USA. Which he wanted to curb as much as possible.
Unlike his predecessor, who of course would have thrown more gasoline on the fire, as per usual.
Yes, Biden made a political decision, as was said upthread. I can understand why he might have wanted to do that but I think it's better for politicians to not comment until a verdict is reached.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
There's a lot of bullshit flying around at the moment, on both climate change and wokeism. They are the new secular religions of the 21stC.
It's our duty to call it out even though, predictably, we'll be call deniers or closet bigots by some for doing so.
Parts of the right have their own political correct dogma and have their own cancel culture, together with some of the stuff on parts of the left it really feels we’ve taken a backward step in terms of freedom of expression. A sort of new 1950s.
Comments
In the UK, we're stricter on noises off than the US, but even here politicians would be criticised (rightly by the way) but it wouldn't lead to a mistrial unless a jury member had personally been approached and nobbled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/maxine-waters-comments.html
I think from now on, I will stick to doing business in rUK......
. And I reject the accusation that I blocked spending on no deal. We spent quite a lot of money on no deal. I think
£4bn overall, during the period that I was in office.
Actually, Boris Johnson’s Government has been in power for 15 months now and we are no better prepared for no deal than we were in July 2019. The work hasn’t been done. I’m hearing from the business representative organisations and other bodies that monitor these things, that the work hasn’t been done. There’s still a massive gap between the identified needs in a no deal situation and what the Government has delivered. It isn’t just about building a barrier down the middle of the M20. It’s about recruiting and training enough people to do customs paperwork. It’s about getting business to engage and understand the challenges that it’ll face on day one.
What I tried to do was to steer the programme as far as possible to focusing on areas where we knew, deal or no deal, we would need this investment, of which there were quite a lot. Whether or not there was a deal, we were always going to need additional customs infrastructure and capacity at ports, so that was worth investing in. There was no nugatory expenditure there, but some of the things that I was invited to support in the name of preparing for no deal were just ludicrous gestures.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/interview-pdf/?personid=42190
Page 32. The whole interview is a great read, showing just how much more competent, thoughtful, serious and honest he is, compared with the vindictive clowns who hounded him and the other sensible ones out of the party, exactly because they were sensible
"Cahill conceded that Waters “may have given” the defense grounds “on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”
He saved his harshest words for elected officials he said were speaking about the case “in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.”
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government,” he said.
“Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”
BoJo fans are like the girlfriend who thinks the local lothario means it when he says he really loves her and means it this time.
The bed in the spare room is ready when you need it, ducks. Because it's inevitable that you will.
https://www.guitarplayer.com/players/larry-carlton-my-career-in-five-songs
Where are the people he hired and trained to process customs paperwork? The places he built for the customs paperwork to be processed? If he did spend the money then those staff should be available today, those locations should be available today - instead they're still being built because the spending only began once he was prised out of office.
Amongst other clangers that show how unfit for office he was, take this example on Page 14:
Look, what happened, I was completely stunned by the speech that she madeat the Conservative Party Conference in October 2016. I hadn’t seen the relevant part of it in advance. I’d had no input to the speech. Nick Timothy kept me completely away from it. I did see some text on the economy the day before, but I had no idea that she was going to describe Brexit in the hardest possible terms.
I was absolutely horrified by what I was hearing. All I remember thinking was, ‘There will be a television camera that will be on your face. If you move a muscle, it will be the story on the front page of every newspaper tomorrow.’ I remember I wasn’t even really listening to her. I was just sitting there. I remember exactly where I was sitting: on the end of a row, to the side of the stage, looking up diagonally at the stage, looking up at her. I just remember focusing my entire energy on maintaining a rictus half-smile, and trying not to show any reaction at all, and then get out of the room without speaking to any journalists. I was completely and utterly horrified by what I felt was almost a coup: a definition of Brexit without any proper Cabinet consultation at all.
Page 14.
Not only is it ridiculous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted "Brexit Means Brexit" and was so incompetent at his job that he asked for no more information than that on how he should be planning - if he had the slightest iota of credibility or dignity he would have resigned after that speech. That was government policy - and it wasn't especially hard terms, it was the terms debated in the Referendum - and he was "horrified" by it?
If he was incapable of supporting and planning those terms, and he was, if he was so horrified by government policy he should have resigned and opposed it from the backbenches.
Instead he sat there with a 'rictus half-smile' then spent years undermining government policy.
I think that such a tactic may result in some marginalising themselves eventually. The country is not how it was several decades ago, and that needs to be recognised.
Consider, for example UK withdrawal from the EU Parliament. For UK MEPs POC were 6-7 out of 75 ie just under 10%. After we have left the remainder of the MEPs fr the EU-27 are 24 POC out of 705 ie 3.5%.
Question for all - do you think the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of killing George Floyd? Important words here "beyond reasonable doubt"
Don't you?
Some people might want to invent some unreasonable doubts, but yes absolutely it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Don't you think so?
Whereas, I thought it was very odd that the cop who shoved that newspaper seller to the ground was prosecuted for manslaughter here. I always thought a jury would say not guilty. Even if that was the straw that broke the camels back, very hard to expect a jury to decide that the perpetrator should be considered guilty of manslaughter.
Ultimately trial by jury is a form of democracy. And I generally think it's pretty good.
He should have said the charges against Chauvin were very serious, that he had his own views on it and how compelling the evidence appears but, he wouldn't want to prejudice a trial in progress.
Mainly aimed at the types of programme that seek to build governance, dialogue and democratic tendencies.
https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/countries/CN?_ga=2.207415440.2026115336.1595499271-1722781335.1593992307
One shudders to think what will happen to the metropolitan left, with its narratives about deep, systemic racism absolutely everywhere in the state and society, if that comes to pass. Some collective fit of mouth-foaming apoplexy I would imagine.
If you look at what is being funded in China by the UK aid budget - its British council stuff & BEIS.
We will see more of this in future as aid money becomes less about poverty and more about diplomacy.
https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/countries/CN/projects
Maxine Waters could be interesting though. If she is still in Congress post-2022 and the GOP wins, a surefire candidate for them to launch proceedings against.
If the day ever does finally arrive that the Labour Party elects a female leader I imagine much will be made of it being a "first" when its no such thing. If a female Labour leader were ever to become PM many in the Labour party would like to act as if that were the country's first female PM.
Tories don't count.
Both are painting themselves into a corner with nowhere to go.
As an aside, I don't know if you're being serious with your comment or think you're just being funny but we need to get back to having the maturity to take dispassionate evidence-based positions on controversial issues, together with the courage to debate them, and not use them to virtue-signal or insinuate about others, or we're going down a dark road and will be in real trouble as a society.
At least it wasn't to help them stop pandemics or anything even more unintentionally ironic.
US English is not as other Englishes.
Methinks the govt is well rid of him. For one thing, seems to have somewhat sticky fingers.
I view this through a British lens, which is more reserved and less judiciously political.
What I'd like to see in this debate is centrism.
"@PoliticsForAlI
NEW: 25% of the population want bears to be let loose around the UK"
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-criminal-laws.html
(1) Have the elements of the offence been made out in principle? Well the answer is yes, otherwise the judge would have kicked it out at the close of the prosecution. Watch the video (if you can bear to).
(2) Has a defence been put forward which might be true? The medical evidence allowed the jury to take the view that the actions of the officer were the cause of the death, and if there had been a credible alternative there would be have been decent medical evidence to that effect. There wasn't.
(3) As a general rule if you are guilty and would be given an impossible time in cross examination you don't give evidence. He didn't.
Bingo. Three lemons in a row. Guilty.
I notice in your quotes from the judge, you omitted this one.
“ a congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot..."
Seeing has how English & British history is replete with examples of politically-inspired legal prosecutions and verdicts. Just saying.
As for Biden's statement re: the Floyd verdict, pretty clear POTUS was getting ahead of the curve, just in case the verdict on murder counts was NOT guilty.
Which would have resulted in massive civil unrest across the USA. Which he wanted to curb as much as possible.
Unlike his predecessor, who of course would have thrown more gasoline on the fire, as per usual.
https://endpts.com/as-fears-mount-over-jj-and-astrazeneca-novavax-enters-a-shaky-spotlight/
It’s a company @Charles would not have given a second look to prior to 2020.
(I’m not claiming any special knowledge - neither would I have.)
Trump was encouraging and instigating the violence on the streets last year - and it was rather sad that some people here thought that violence he'd encouraged was a reason for him to be re-elected.
Thank goodness America made the right call. Hopefully it can begin to heal and the midterms don't screw things back up again.
Few years ago a young bear was seen swimming across Puget Sound from west to east, unfortunately ended up smack in high-density suburbs. After a few days, game wardens tracked him down and relocated him up in the mountains.
Appears he was looking for a new territory anyway, and found one after some adventures. Something to tell his grandkids!
Back on topic, it's interesting to note how, contrary to other polls, the 15% "Other" vote seems to have been drawn from the Khan vote which in the ComRes poll is 41% (down 3 from 2016).
Bailey trails on 28% (down 7 on Goldsmith's first round vote) so it's a 2% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Among the also-rans, Porritt is on 8% and Berry on 6% and the best of the rest is YouTube "personality" Niko Omilana who will apparently get 5% of the vote. It would be incredible if Omilana did that well but we'll see in a couple of weeks.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
It isnt some declared statement of fact that cant be questioned. They do have a lot in common in the sense that there are those using the situation to push for a society theyve always dreamed of, often based on models that are more about the modellers assumptions than anything else.
The idea that we can reduce carbon to such an extent and it not have massive costs is my contention. This stuff aint free.
On horseback.
With an elephant gun.
pb.com plays its version of Cluedo......
If we try to do so by listening to the policies of the "Greens" or "XR" or "Greenpeace" etc we would be devastated.
If we do so as we are, by using clean technologies to replace dirty ones, then that works.
We've already reduced our emission by over 40% from 1990 levels. In the same time we've increased the size of our economy by over 70% in real terms. That is a remarkable transformation that is continuing year on year yet if you listen to the extreme left you'd think we hadn't done anything yet.
I agree that the congresswoman's opinion shouldn't be significant. But that's not the issue.
The issue is that it gives the defence credible grounds for a re-trial, which is precisely what the judge said.
What an unpleasant experience. First I felt like I was going to make myself vomit, then I had a sneezing fit. Wor Lass watched the whole thing and decided not to bother with the test.
Happily, the test was negative.
NEW THREAD
My eyes watered, and I've been having sneezing fits all day - it disturbed the lining of my nose and I'd already been suffering from hayfever.
I won't go anywhere or do anything that requires that as a choice in future.
We need to change our consumption model rather than the level of consumption. De-carbonising the economy will be a big step - in energy generation we are already making huge advances and anything that can further this should be encouraged.
I'm not sure about "building new roads" - a co-ordinated energy efficient transport policy does mean more public transport especially trains (including trams and light rail). It also means recognising the future of work as less commuting and business travel.
The "elephant in the room" is while I can see most of Europe and even (in time) the USA taking up this new economic model, what of China, India and the rest? We can't afford to sit smugly by and claim we're all right because we aren't. The impact of climate change will be felt by all however "green" individual nations and indeed regions may be.
It's our duty to call it out even though, predictably, we'll be call deniers or closet bigots by some for doing so.
From moving electricity generation from coal to natural gas...