....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
Johnson is clearly an academically clever guy and he is also a buffoon. Part of the buffoonery is a comedy act, although most of it is down to both his complete lack of common sense and his out of control moral compass.
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
Obviously Batley & Spen will be close and obviously we need one or two constituency polls.
At this stage I am inclined go think a narrow Con gain. It is even possible that Galloway gets a vote (say around 6%) which turns out to be greater than the Conservative majority over Labour.
Incidentally I know it is not happening, but is it true Ed Balls was a possible Labour candidate here please? Thanks
Pamela
Or on the other had it could be a narrow Labour win with the Heavy Woollens getting a biiger vote than the Labour majority over the Tories.
If the Tories do win it expect Starmer to face a leadership challenge, probably from Rayner or Nandy
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
Johnson is clearly an academically clever guy and he is also a buffoon. Part of the buffoonery is a comedy act, although most of it is down to both his complete lack of common sense and his out of control moral compass.
I think some people have a tendency to overplay the 'buffoon act' idea when they make him seem more machiavellian. Boris obviously does play up his persona to a degree, but it seem pretty likely that is by exagerrating elements of his personality that already exist rather than wholesale invention. He's chaotic and prone to blustering already, and emphasising it is a handy defence and useful in giving him identifiable personality.
I do wonder whether this sort of reporting generates a feeling of “what’s the point in being vaccinated, we’ll never be released because somebody will be screaming variants”. The screamers seem to have a right to permanent media time.
Vaccines are primarily to avoid the disease, not to get "released."
From a practical point of view the best policy is, get out there while you can. I have just arranged to spend next week sailing from Cornwall to Scotland before the iron curtain comes down again.
The Guardian was fiercely mocking the lab leak hypothesis up to about 3 days ago. It really is an astonishing volte face
Is this something that can ever be settled? I hope so. A theory on something so important that can neither be believed nor mocked is rather unsatisfactory.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
The thing about this “cases rising out of control, what a disaster” mantra is that we’ve got the example of Bolton. India variant taking hold in a relatively low vaccinated population. And cases now at or past their peak. And hospitalisation and (particularly) deaths? A fraction of what we saw in previous waves. So why the big concern?
Obviously Batley & Spen will be close and obviously we need one or two constituency polls.
At this stage I am inclined go think a narrow Con gain. It is even possible that Galloway gets a vote (say around 6%) which turns out to be greater than the Conservative majority over Labour.
Incidentally I know it is not happening, but is it true Ed Balls was a possible Labour candidate here please? Thanks
Pamela
Or on the other had it could be a narrow Labour win with the Heavy Woollens getting a biiger vote than the Labour majority over the Tories.
If the Tories do win it expect Starmer to face a leadership challenge, probably from Rayner or Nandy
Unless it's a totally stupid margin I don't foresee a serious leadership challenge.
The Guardian was fiercely mocking the lab leak hypothesis up to about 3 days ago. It really is an astonishing volte face
Is this something that can ever be settled? I hope so. A theory on something so important that can neither be believed nor mocked is rather unsatisfactory.
No, I doubt we will ever get a definitive answer. It’s too late and the Chinese have buried the direct evidence either way.
All we have then is circumstantial evidence, which definitely favours lab leak rather than natural, and which increasingly suggests the virus was altered to make it nastier
""They seem to be multiplying by a certain fraction each day - in other words, growing exponentially," he said."
Maybe I am being really thick on a Saturday, but where are the figures showing an exponential growth? I don't see it looking at UK tested positive figures on a daily basis.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
Does an “assassination” generally imply that the killer was doing it on behalf of a third party?
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I've always felt assassinated implies a deeper, more coordinated motivation, probably on behalf of someone else or a state, rather than a mere brutal murder. But on the other hand when it is a political victim we almost invariably refer to their killer as an assassin, and they might be completely nuts.
So maybe the victim plays a big part in whether we think of it as assassination.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
Assassination. I don’t think it does anything for the status of the killer but it does for the victim. Politicians do put themselves at risk so I think it does deserve special status.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I always thought that assassination was just a sub-category of murder being that of prominent people for political reasons, just as matricide is a further subcategory etc.
I do wonder whether this sort of reporting generates a feeling of “what’s the point in being vaccinated, we’ll never be released because somebody will be screaming variants”. The screamers seem to have a right to permanent media time.
Vaccines are primarily to avoid the disease, not to get "released."
From a practical point of view the best policy is, get out there while you can. I have just arranged to spend next week sailing from Cornwall to Scotland before the iron curtain comes down again.
People see vaccines as a release mechanism. It’s how they’ve been sold.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I always thought that assassination was just a sub-category of murder being that of prominent people for political reasons, just as matricide is a further subcategory etc.
Oh yes I agree this is murder. It was just that ever since it happened I wondered why no-one seems to ever have referred to it as an assassination. Which would seem to fit your definition.
‘Covid cases growing exponentially’ and government is ‘warned’ against repeating the mistake of acting too late
- Sky news
It would be helpful if you could post who is doing the “warning”. Because if it is the Fake Sage, they can get in the bin.
Yes annoying, sorry
It’s Tim Gowers the Cambridge maths prof. But Sky News doesn’t let me link. Dunno why
He is on front page of today's Guardian. Apparently the prof who wrote the note about the mathematics of allowing the virus to run its course while protecting the vulnerable which was so persuasive that Cummings decided to start shouting 'lockdown now' into Johnson's ears back in March 2020.
The maths worked out that the NHS would be swamped even if vulnerable were protected because iirc 2% of people would still need ICU and that is a lot of people all at once if the plague runs through in a matter of months.
Seems to stack up especially given how little we knew in early 2020. But i couldn't see anything in the article that discussed whether that 2% figure happened in the real world. Sweden did not do full fat lockdown. Did it see 2% of its population in ICU?
‘Covid cases growing exponentially’ and government is ‘warned’ against repeating the mistake of acting too late
- Sky news
It would be helpful if you could post who is doing the “warning”. Because if it is the Fake Sage, they can get in the bin.
Yes annoying, sorry
It’s Tim Gowers the Cambridge maths prof. But Sky News doesn’t let me link. Dunno why
He is on front page of today's Guardian. Apparently the prof who wrote the note about the mathematics of allowing the virus to run its course while protecting the vulnerable which was so persuasive that Cummings decided to start shouting 'lockdown now' into Johnson's ears back in March 2020.
The maths worked out that the NHS would be swamped even if vulnerable were protected because iirc 2% of people would still need ICU and that is a lot of people all at once if the plague runs through in a matter of months.
Seems to stack up especially given how little we knew in early 2020. But i couldn't see anything in the article that discussed whether that 2% figure happened in the real world. Sweden did not do full fat lockdown. Did it see 2% of its population in ICU?
Reading that guardian piece, the article didn’t seem to justify the obvious intended slant of the headline. Not unusual for the Guardian though...
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
""They seem to be multiplying by a certain fraction each day - in other words, growing exponentially," he said."
Maybe I am being really thick on a Saturday, but where are the figures showing an exponential growth? I don't see it looking at UK tested positive figures on a daily basis.
Also every time they find any sort of an outbreak they pile in with a load of surge testing. So it is very difficult to conclude anything on raw numbers. And as everyone keeps pointing out, there is little or no evidence at the moment to links to significant changes to hospitalisation levels. There will obviously be some impact on deaths because of the way the government measures them.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I always thought that assassination was just a sub-category of murder being that of prominent people for political reasons, just as matricide is a further subcategory etc.
Oh yes I agree this is murder. It was just that ever since it happened I wondered why no-one seems to ever have referred to it as an assassination. Which would seem to fit your definition.
It's a headline writer's word, not a technical one, with weird associations with hashish-crazed killers (one for Foxy). I would tend to limit it to heads of state; it doesn't feel right to say Airey Neave was assassinated. Then again, Wikipedia calls his death exactly that - and if they are right, so was Jo Cox.
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
Im not one for conspiracy theories really, but would I be shocked if it was a manmade virus leaked from a lab? Nope.
Question is if it was deliberate or an accident, whole new game then
The one thing that has puzzled me about Governments' actions during this pandemic is why, when there is plenty of historical examples to go with as to how viruses mutate and perform showing that eventually they die off / the population gains exposure, they seem so certain about keeping restrictions ongoing as long as possible.
Of course, that course of action would make sense if Governments believe there is a reasonable (at least) probability that this virus was modified to make it more virulent and therefore they can't be sure what will come next.
So not only is there more evidence pointing to the lab theory but Governments' actions are suggesting that as well.
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
Im not one for conspiracy theories really, but would I be shocked if it was a manmade virus leaked from a lab? Nope.
Question is if it was deliberate or an accident, whole new game then
Really easy question, that: why would you release it in Wuhan when you could release it in Washington DC? Given how good China was at containing the wuhan release they would have been immune to the virus if it had started in Washington, and the US would have been hit at least twice as hard as it was, with zero notice or prep time. Why would they have fouled their own doorstep?
A plausible candidate for the USS Omaha UFO sightings. Highly advanced secret US drones programmed to swarm. May be possible to launch from subs. Also linked to electronic warfare which can project ‘phantom’ aircraft
‘#UAP @BretWeinstein@HeatherEHeying the DOD videos behind the recent UFO discussion show tests of a Navy program called NEMESIS.’
Couple of problems tho. Does not explain any of the earlier sightings - this tech is so new (and may not even exist yet)
Leaves open the big question: how can America be spooked by its own weaponry? And why are the political elite being fooled? - or is it some grand conspiracy to distract and confuse the Chinese?
To add to the piquant mix, the tweeter personally believes alien UAPs exist - just that these aren’t them. Hah
We talked to Elizondo in an email interview and, according to him, the UAP that have been tracked and monitored for decades exhibit what have become referred to as "The Five Observables." These are:
antigravity lift sudden and instantaneous acceleration hypersonic velocities without any visible signatures, sonic booms or observable means of propulsion low observability or cloaking trans-medium travel — the ability to operate in extraordinary ways from the vacuum of space to the depts of the oceans without impedance or aerodynamic limitations It's these characteristics that baffle national security experts the most. "We do not have anything in our arsenal that can perform in these ways and we have a high degree of confidence that no known terrestrial ally or adversary possesses this technology either," Elizondo says.
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
Im not one for conspiracy theories really, but would I be shocked if it was a manmade virus leaked from a lab? Nope.
Question is if it was deliberate or an accident, whole new game then
The one thing that has puzzled me about Governments' actions during this pandemic is why, when there is plenty of historical examples to go with as to how viruses mutate and perform showing that eventually they die off / the population gains exposure, they seem so certain about keeping restrictions ongoing as long as possible.
Of course, that course of action would make sense if Governments believe there is a reasonable (at least) probability that this virus was modified to make it more virulent and therefore they can't be sure what will come next.
So not only is there more evidence pointing to the lab theory but Governments' actions are suggesting that as well.
Viruses don't all behave like that. Smallpox. Rabies.
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
Im not one for conspiracy theories really, but would I be shocked if it was a manmade virus leaked from a lab? Nope.
Question is if it was deliberate or an accident, whole new game then
Really easy question, that: why would you release it in Wuhan when you could release it in Washington DC? Given how good China was at containing the wuhan release they would have been immune to the virus if it had started in Washington, and the US would have been hit at least twice as hard as it was, with zero notice or prep time. Why would they have fouled their own doorstep?
I think that’s a fair point - though interestingly we don’t seem to hear about its impact on China as much in terms of death toll / restrictions. Though I suppose this is probably because a regime such as China’s is better suited to closing down areas / being forceful in restrictions..etc
HANOI (REUTERS) - Authorities in Vietnam have detected a new coronavirus variant that is a combination of the Covid-19 variants first found in India and Britain, and spreads quickly by air, the health minister said on Saturday (May 29).
After successfully containing the virus for most of last year, Vietnam is grappling with a spike in infections since late April that accounts for more than half of the total 6,713 registered cases. So far, there have been 47 deaths.
“Vietnam has uncovered a new Covid-19 variant combining characteristics of the two existing variants first found in India and the UK,” Health Minister Nguyen Thanh Long said in a statement. “The new variant is very dangerous."
If this is borne out by further investigation, it will make that scandal uncovered in Ireland a decade ago look like a picnic.
I can't work out from the story whether these kids were intentionally killed and hidden or died of neglect and disease - or both?
Absolutely terrible whatever the cause.
I can't help but think this has been a misuse of the 'Truth and Reconciliation' idea
Well, at this moment it seems nobody knows. That’s what’s so deeply unsettling. In Ireland they died of neglect and goodness knows that was bad enough. But there’s a chance this could have been deliberate murder.
HANOI (REUTERS) - Authorities in Vietnam have detected a new coronavirus variant that is a combination of the Covid-19 variants first found in India and Britain, and spreads quickly by air, the health minister said on Saturday (May 29).
After successfully containing the virus for most of last year, Vietnam is grappling with a spike in infections since late April that accounts for more than half of the total 6,713 registered cases. So far, there have been 47 deaths.
“Vietnam has uncovered a new Covid-19 variant combining characteristics of the two existing variants first found in India and the UK,” Health Minister Nguyen Thanh Long said in a statement. “The new variant is very dangerous."
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
When my local MP, Stephen Timms, was stabbed in May 2010, his attacker was charged and later convicted of attempted murder.
I don't think "assassination" has any legal meaning in the UK - it's an unlawful killing (or in my MP's case, attempted unlawful killing).
The growing evidence is not just pointing to the lab leak hypothesis, it is going further, and pointing to a virus that was genetically altered in a lab to make it more virulent and dangerous, which then leaked accidentally - or even deliberately
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
Im not one for conspiracy theories really, but would I be shocked if it was a manmade virus leaked from a lab? Nope.
Question is if it was deliberate or an accident, whole new game then
Really easy question, that: why would you release it in Wuhan when you could release it in Washington DC? Given how good China was at containing the wuhan release they would have been immune to the virus if it had started in Washington, and the US would have been hit at least twice as hard as it was, with zero notice or prep time. Why would they have fouled their own doorstep?
This is interesting. Fauci quietly changed the rules under Trump, so that the US could once again fund ‘gain of function’ research in Wuhan
Not only that, he was explicitly warned that an altered, nastier virus could escape, and cause a pandemic, as early as 2012. He wrote about it himself. He is deeply implicated
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I always thought that assassination was just a sub-category of murder being that of prominent people for political reasons, just as matricide is a further subcategory etc.
Oh yes I agree this is murder. It was just that ever since it happened I wondered why no-one seems to ever have referred to it as an assassination. Which would seem to fit your definition.
It's a headline writer's word, not a technical one, with weird associations with hashish-crazed killers (one for Foxy). I would tend to limit it to heads of state; it doesn't feel right to say Airey Neave was assassinated. Then again, Wikipedia calls his death exactly that - and if they are right, so was Jo Cox.
Franz Ferdinand wasn’t a head of state.
An assassination is (according to Collins) ‘When someone important is assassinated, they are murdered as a political act.’ That would fit with Jo Cox’s death, along with Airey Neave, Ian Gow etc.
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I always thought that assassination was just a sub-category of murder being that of prominent people for political reasons, just as matricide is a further subcategory etc.
Oh yes I agree this is murder. It was just that ever since it happened I wondered why no-one seems to ever have referred to it as an assassination. Which would seem to fit your definition.
It's a headline writer's word, not a technical one, with weird associations with hashish-crazed killers (one for Foxy). I would tend to limit it to heads of state; it doesn't feel right to say Airey Neave was assassinated. Then again, Wikipedia calls his death exactly that - and if they are right, so was Jo Cox.
Frank Ferdinand wasn’t a head of state.
An assassination is (according to Collins) ‘When someone important is assassinated, they are murdered as a political act.’ That would fit with Jo Cox’s death, along with Airey Neave, Ian Gow etc.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 40m Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous. #londonprotest
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I always thought that assassination was just a sub-category of murder being that of prominent people for political reasons, just as matricide is a further subcategory etc.
Oh yes I agree this is murder. It was just that ever since it happened I wondered why no-one seems to ever have referred to it as an assassination. Which would seem to fit your definition.
It's a headline writer's word, not a technical one, with weird associations with hashish-crazed killers (one for Foxy). I would tend to limit it to heads of state; it doesn't feel right to say Airey Neave was assassinated. Then again, Wikipedia calls his death exactly that - and if they are right, so was Jo Cox.
Frank Ferdinand wasn’t a head of state.
An assassination is (according to Collins) ‘When someone important is assassinated, they are murdered as a political act.’ That would fit with Jo Cox’s death, along with Airey Neave, Ian Gow etc.
That's a plain-spoken assessment of his status.
I’m blaming autocorrect.
It’s actually pissing me off today. For some reason it’s changing ‘were’ to ‘we’re’ every time for no obvious reason.
If this is borne out by further investigation, it will make that scandal uncovered in Ireland a decade ago look like a picnic.
I can't work out from the story whether these kids were intentionally killed and hidden or died of neglect and disease - or both?
Absolutely terrible whatever the cause.
I can't help but think this has been a misuse of the 'Truth and Reconciliation' idea
Well, at this moment it seems nobody knows. That’s what’s so deeply unsettling. In Ireland they died of neglect and goodness knows that was bad enough. But there’s a chance this could have been deliberate murder.
There's quite a lot of background. Physical and sexual abuse for sure, murder who knows?
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
Johnson is clearly an academically clever guy and he is also a buffoon. Part of the buffoonery is a comedy act, although most of it is down to both his complete lack of common sense and his out of control moral compass.
I think Boris is a political genius, but I don't think there is any evidence of him being especially academically or intellectually clever. Politics/journalism and academia/intellect are two very different things. It is rare, it seems to me, to have both.
Boris notably and sensibly does not put himself up to be interviewed at length by well briefed intelligentsia.
(Academia and intellect seem to be growing apart too in many cases in that bloated pseudo industry of mass higher education, but that's another story)
Excuse me asking this question and I mean no disrespect by it but a genuine enquiry.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
I've always felt assassinated implies a deeper, more coordinated motivation, probably on behalf of someone else or a state, rather than a mere brutal murder. But on the other hand when it is a political victim we almost invariably refer to their killer as an assassin, and they might be completely nuts.
So maybe the victim plays a big part in whether we think of it as assassination.
Personally, I'd never use assassination in relation to any murder of passion or madness. To me, it connotes cold, political/business/organized crime calculation in the decision to murder. In other words, it is the execution of a death sentence passed without due legal sanction.
So the lab leak theory that everyone, including Anthony Fauci, has dismissed for a year as impossible Trumpite nonsense, is actually something Anthony Fauci said could definitely happen, to an altered virus, as long ago as 2012
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
Tim Spector @timspector · 2h Daily rates up again at over 3500 - main drivers are localised hotspots in W.Midlands NW and Scotland-affects age groups below 50 with big recent increase in kids - not in vaccinated groups. Thanks for logging with Zoe!
Tim Spector @timspector · 2h Daily rates up again at over 3500 - main drivers are localised hotspots in W.Midlands NW and Scotland-affects age groups below 50 with big recent increase in kids - not in vaccinated groups. Thanks for logging with Zoe!
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
Johnson is clearly an academically clever guy and he is also a buffoon. Part of the buffoonery is a comedy act, although most of it is down to both his complete lack of common sense and his out of control moral compass.
I think Boris is a political genius, but I don't think there is any evidence of him being especially academically or intellectually clever. Politics/journalism and academia/intellect are two very different things. It is rare, it seems to me, to have both.
(Academia and intellect seem to be growing apart too in many cases in that bloated pseudo industry of mass higher education, but that's another story)
I thought it was pretty well established by now that there are multiple types of intelligence. But in the business and political world, it is clear that emotional intelligence is the key success factor.
Tim Spector @timspector · 2h Daily rates up again at over 3500 - main drivers are localised hotspots in W.Midlands NW and Scotland-affects age groups below 50 with big recent increase in kids - not in vaccinated groups. Thanks for logging with Zoe!
Any sign of hospitalisations going up?
I don't think ZOE measures that. He's reporting on users of the app who report symptoms.
So the lab leak theory that everyone, including Anthony Fauci, has dismissed for a year as impossible Trumpite nonsense, is actually something Anthony Fauci said could definitely happen, to an altered virus, as long ago as 2012
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
Evidence is either overwhelming, or it is circumstantial.
So the lab leak theory that everyone, including Anthony Fauci, has dismissed for a year as impossible Trumpite nonsense, is actually something Anthony Fauci said could definitely happen, to an altered virus, as long ago as 2012
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
There is no such thing as overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Tim Spector @timspector · 2h Daily rates up again at over 3500 - main drivers are localised hotspots in W.Midlands NW and Scotland-affects age groups below 50 with big recent increase in kids - not in vaccinated groups. Thanks for logging with Zoe!
What the scientists never or rarely tell you is that all the models behind the roadmap assumed increases in cases at each stage as a matter of course. And the whole point of the 5week gaps between stages was to give time to assess the impact of these rises on hospitalisations and deaths. So until they can provide serious evidence of a problem, beyond “models” that seem to basically assume the vaccines are useless - then it should be possible to hold the line.
So the lab leak theory that everyone, including Anthony Fauci, has dismissed for a year as impossible Trumpite nonsense, is actually something Anthony Fauci said could definitely happen, to an altered virus, as long ago as 2012
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
Evidence is either overwhelming, or it is circumstantial.
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” - H D Thoreau
James Melville @JamesMelville · 40m Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous. #londonprotest
Oh goody, the classic 'the MSM are not reporting on X' whinge. At least they remembered to put 'significant' in there, so when it no doubt is reported it isn't untrue (and cannot be, given significant can mean whatever people want).
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
Johnson is clearly an academically clever guy and he is also a buffoon. Part of the buffoonery is a comedy act, although most of it is down to both his complete lack of common sense and his out of control moral compass.
I think Boris is a political genius, but I don't think there is any evidence of him being especially academically or intellectually clever. Politics/journalism and academia/intellect are two very different things. It is rare, it seems to me, to have both.
(Academia and intellect seem to be growing apart too in many cases in that bloated pseudo industry of mass higher education, but that's another story)
I thought it was pretty well established by now that there are multiple types of intelligence. But in the business and political world, it is clear that emotional intelligence is the key success factor.
Plus the charisma that often comes with it.
Only a few PMs have been truly top intellectuals and academics, Brown and Wilson probably the only two postwar (though Hague would also have been had he won in 2001).
Wilson was rare in being an intellectual (a former Oxford don) while disguising it cleverly enough with a man of the people act to win elections
James Melville @JamesMelville · 40m Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous. #londonprotest
Hundreds of thousands is it?
I'm reluctant to rerun the great 'how big was the Brexit protest' clash of 2019, but...
So the lab leak theory that everyone, including Anthony Fauci, has dismissed for a year as impossible Trumpite nonsense, is actually something Anthony Fauci said could definitely happen, to an altered virus, as long ago as 2012
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
There is no such thing as overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Are you sure?
‘Also known as indirect evidence. Evidence that does not directly prove a fact in dispute, but allows the fact finder to draw a reasonable inference about the existence or non-existence of a fact based on the evidence. It is different from direct evidence, which establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact on its own. The law does not differentiate the weight a fact finder is to give to circumstantial or direct evidence; they are to be treated equally.’
Crucial last sentence. Circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct, observational evidence
James Melville @JamesMelville · 40m Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous. #londonprotest
Oh goody, the classic 'the MSM are not reporting on X' whinge. At least they remembered to put 'significant' in there, so when it no doubt is reported it isn't untrue (and cannot be, given significant can mean whatever people want).
If these protesters are genuinely opposed to Govt’s restrictions, then the media not covering it are doing them a favour.
Its interesting how the shooting of Sasha Johnson is still being headlined as "Activist Shooting" and talking all about BLM etc - and not as "Gang Shooting" considering that's what happened.
We need someone who will tackle drug reform and see to it that these gangs are abolished.
On the subject of drug reform, another cannabis user showing paranoid delusions:
Its interesting how the shooting of Sasha Johnson is still being headlined as "Activist Shooting" and talking all about BLM etc - and not as "Gang Shooting" considering that's what happened.
We need someone who will tackle drug reform and see to it that these gangs are abolished.
On the subject of drug reform, another cannabis user showing paranoid delusions:
Which has happened in this country under our current laws.
Do you think this guy has been getting his drugs from a regulated pharmacist or equivalent as those in favour of reform advocate?
Or from county line or equivalent gangsters?
I am more bothered what it has done to his brain.
The story just says in passing that he had a small quantity of cannabis. You could just as fairly present it as a story about the mental effects of living in Leicester.
....Meanwhile we've got a lying incompetent freeloader for our prime minister but we don't care!
Many of us thought the country would go down the toilet after Brexit. Few realised it would happen so quickly
The thing is, political opponents always claim that the PM of the day is a liar, or incompetent, or a freeloader, etc. This means that one comes along who actually is the attacks have been blunted and voters just think it’s the usual hyperbole. The contrast between G W Bush andTrump is particularly instructive here: at the time Bush was seen as appalling, stupid, possibly the worst President ever. And the Trump came along and made him look like Lincoln in comparison, but any attempts to warn voters of this were made much harder by the fact that that is what political opponents always say.
A very good post. G W Bush did seem to come over as not very bright, yet he has shone since.
It is difficult to believe anyone (within a democracy) will come close to Trump so comparing Boris to Trump is not wise for the reasons you say.
There are characteristics that do become apparent early on. For instance May came across as honest, but stubborn and inflexible and not a communicator. Boris seems to be not concerned with any detail, yet willing to state stuff that it turns out not to be true. In many cases this may not be intentional, but there is no correction afterwards. The quote to remember is the one in front of the Committee where Andrew Tyrie said 'That is very interesting Boris, except none of it is really true is it Boris'. He was just rattling off the old untrue EU rules myths. This has all continued as PM eg border down the Irish sea stuff. This seems to be reflected in his life generally, which appears chaotic. It may be a good trait for a 'on the hoof' campaigner, but not for a CEO/PM.
He is however not a Trump and we should remember that when being critical.
GWB is a reminder that being bright isn't everything. Like McCain, he was an honourable conservative, a distinguished tradition to be respected.
But GWB is, in fact, very bright. He has a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
What he also understood is that appearing to be too cerebral is something of a turnoff to American Republican voters.
It was the trick Reagan played - another very intelligent man who played the buffoon to perfection for much of his career. Or Bill Clinton, for the matter of that. And it’s a trick Hilary Clinton couldn’t quite pull off.
I wonder if there's any politicians in the UK who are really very intelligent but are capable of playing the buffoon to perfection?
Johnson is clearly an academically clever guy and he is also a buffoon. Part of the buffoonery is a comedy act, although most of it is down to both his complete lack of common sense and his out of control moral compass.
I think Boris is a political genius, but I don't think there is any evidence of him being especially academically or intellectually clever. Politics/journalism and academia/intellect are two very different things. It is rare, it seems to me, to have both.
(Academia and intellect seem to be growing apart too in many cases in that bloated pseudo industry of mass higher education, but that's another story)
I thought it was pretty well established by now that there are multiple types of intelligence. But in the business and political world, it is clear that emotional intelligence is the key success factor.
I personally think three skills are often key in business - interpersonal communication ( emotionally intelligent ) , aggression / self-centredness (non-emotionally intellgent) , and intellectual / strategy ( non-emotionally intelligent). Politicians can manage primarily on only the first two, and through governance / administrative structures that stay fixed for longer than those in business, delegate the third plank, as Johnson does.
Gathering together the Covid theories and info today, we have to accept that remote possibility that the Chinese have successfully altered a bat coronavirus to make it more dangerous, and the virus has now escaped from the Wuhan lab, and the virus has been weaponised so brilliantly it will just continue to evolve into nastier and nastier forms, escaping all the vaccines, such that eventually it will infect everyone around the world ten times over, until all of us are dead
Thankyou. I’m here all week providing cheerful news
Gathering together the Covid theories and info today, we have to accept that remote possibility that the Chinese have successfully altered a bat coronavirus to make it more dangerous, and the virus has now escaped from the Wuhan lab, and the virus has been weaponised so brilliantly it will just continue to evolve into nastier and nastier forms, escaping all the vaccines, such that eventually it will infect everyone around the world ten times over, until all of us are dead
Thankyou. I’m here all week providing cheerful news
So the lab leak theory that everyone, including Anthony Fauci, has dismissed for a year as impossible Trumpite nonsense, is actually something Anthony Fauci said could definitely happen, to an altered virus, as long ago as 2012
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
Evidence is either overwhelming, or it is circumstantial.
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” - H D Thoreau
Sherlock Holmes quotes that one somewhere. Circumstantial evidence is often overwhelming, as when a jeweller's window is smashed and items disappear, only for identical items as those missing to be found round the corner moments later in a bag marked swag carried by a masked person in a striped jumper whose finger prints match prints on the window, the items and a stone that has landed inside the smashed window.
There are no witnesses of the theft itself, but the evidence both of actus reus and mens rea is overwhelming. But each and every element of the evidence is open to other inferences.
Overwhelming does not mean incapable of rebuttal. There is no such circumstance. That is in the nature of empirical evidence.
‘Most MSM reports didn’t “ignore” the lab leak theory, they actively crapped all over it for a over year while pretending to be objective out of a toxic mix of confirmation bias, source bias (their scientist sources lied to them), group think, TDS and general incompetence.’
James Melville @JamesMelville · 40m Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous. #londonprotest
Hundreds of thousands is it?
I'm reluctant to rerun the great 'how big was the Brexit protest' clash of 2019, but...
All the outlets seem to be reporting "hundreds".
So the exaggeration would be three orders of magnitude not the normal one.
Its interesting how the shooting of Sasha Johnson is still being headlined as "Activist Shooting" and talking all about BLM etc - and not as "Gang Shooting" considering that's what happened.
We need someone who will tackle drug reform and see to it that these gangs are abolished.
On the subject of drug reform, another cannabis user showing paranoid delusions:
Which has happened in this country under our current laws.
Do you think this guy has been getting his drugs from a regulated pharmacist or equivalent as those in favour of reform advocate?
Or from county line or equivalent gangsters?
I am more bothered what it has done to his brain.
So am I.
Do you think there is more risk for people having their brain screwed up by smoking drugs of unknown provenance that could be of any strength or breed, from criminal gangsters just in for a buck - or a regulated substance of known strength purchased from a legal supplier?
Its the same with alcohol, drinking high spirits screws you up much more than drinking some beer or wine.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 40m Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous. #londonprotest
Hundreds of thousands is it?
I'm reluctant to rerun the great 'how big was the Brexit protest' clash of 2019, but...
All the outlets seem to be reporting "hundreds".
So the exaggeration would be three orders of magnitude not the normal one.
If it were hundreds of thousands, people not involved might have noticed by now!
Hundreds of thousands is the scale of an Iraq War March, or a Countryside Alliance March.
I have read of Jo Cox’s killing described as an assassination. I just checked, and it is described as such on Wiki.
More difficult question. Was Jill Dando’s killing an assassination?
Why was she killed? Answer that and we would know.
That was a very weird case, that remains unsolved to this day. An investigative journalist, killed by someone who clearly knew what they were doing, outside her house but not the house she lived in, no attempt to make it look like a robbery...
Comments
I don’t believe it was deliberate, personally. The Chinese would not smash their economy on purpose. I can now believe the possibility it was weaponised - and escaped too soon. Which was the exact thesis proposed by the late great SeanT in his Spectator article on ‘covid the thriller’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-Id-write-covid-the-thriller
If the Tories do win it expect Starmer to face a leadership challenge, probably from Rayner or Nandy
Canada mourns as remains of 215 children found at indigenous school
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57291530
If this is borne out by further investigation, it will make that scandal uncovered in Ireland a decade ago look like a picnic.
Ishmael has linked below
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/29/ufos-uap-america-pentagon-report
From a practical point of view the best policy is, get out there while you can. I have just arranged to spend next week sailing from Cornwall to Scotland before the iron curtain comes down again.
When does one refer to the intentional killing of someone as an assassination rather than the more catch-all term murder? Would it be suitable to refer to Jo Cox's murder as an assassination given she was a prominent political figure who was killed for political reasons?
Or does calling it an assassination give the killer more prominence than they deserve?
I am content to say that he was a just scumbag murderer but this is one of those strange musings that has been floating around my thoughts for some time so it seemed a suitable point to ask.
All we have then is circumstantial evidence, which definitely favours lab leak rather than natural, and which increasingly suggests the virus was altered to make it nastier
Absolutely terrible whatever the cause.
I can't help but think this has been a misuse of the 'Truth and Reconciliation' idea
""They seem to be multiplying by a certain fraction each day - in other words, growing exponentially," he said."
Maybe I am being really thick on a Saturday, but where are the figures showing an exponential growth? I don't see it looking at UK tested positive figures on a daily basis.
So maybe the victim plays a big part in whether we think of it as assassination.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1398630818176774147?s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1398635325921153036
The maths worked out that the NHS would be swamped even if vulnerable were protected because iirc 2% of people would still need ICU and that is a lot of people all at once if the plague runs through in a matter of months.
Seems to stack up especially given how little we knew in early 2020. But i couldn't see anything in the article that discussed whether that 2% figure happened in the real world. Sweden did not do full fat lockdown. Did it see 2% of its population in ICU?
Question is if it was deliberate or an accident, whole new game then
Of course, that course of action would make sense if Governments believe there is a reasonable (at least) probability that this virus was modified to make it more virulent and therefore they can't be sure what will come next.
So not only is there more evidence pointing to the lab theory but Governments' actions are suggesting that as well.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/ufos-news.htm
We talked to Elizondo in an email interview and, according to him, the UAP that have been tracked and monitored for decades exhibit what have become referred to as "The Five Observables." These are:
antigravity lift
sudden and instantaneous acceleration
hypersonic velocities without any visible signatures, sonic booms or observable means of propulsion
low observability or cloaking
trans-medium travel — the ability to operate in extraordinary ways from the vacuum of space to the depts of the oceans without impedance or aerodynamic limitations
It's these characteristics that baffle national security experts the most. "We do not have anything in our arsenal that can perform in these ways and we have a high degree of confidence that no known terrestrial ally or adversary possesses this technology either," Elizondo says.
After successfully containing the virus for most of last year, Vietnam is grappling with a spike in infections since late April that accounts for more than half of the total 6,713 registered cases. So far, there have been 47 deaths.
“Vietnam has uncovered a new Covid-19 variant combining characteristics of the two existing variants first found in India and the UK,” Health Minister Nguyen Thanh Long said in a statement. “The new variant is very dangerous."
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/vietnam-detects-hybrid-of-covid-19-variant-identified-in-india-and-uk
Vietnam is currently on the Amber list.
I don't think "assassination" has any legal meaning in the UK - it's an unlawful killing (or in my MP's case, attempted unlawful killing).
I don't think it matters if you're an MP or not.
Not only that, he was explicitly warned that an altered, nastier virus could escape, and cause a pandemic, as early as 2012. He wrote about it himself. He is deeply implicated
An assassination is (according to Collins) ‘When someone important is assassinated, they are murdered as a political act.’ That would fit with Jo Cox’s death, along with Airey Neave, Ian Gow etc.
@JamesMelville
·
40m
Why aren’t the mainstream media giving the anti-lockdown / #NoVaccinePassports protest march in London any significant coverage?
Hundreds of thousands of people are marching today. It’s enormous.
#londonprotest
It’s actually pissing me off today. For some reason it’s changing ‘were’ to ‘we’re’ every time for no obvious reason.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/28/world/children-remains-discovered-canada-kamloops-school/index.html
https://nctr.ca/
Boris notably and sensibly does not put himself up to be interviewed at length by well briefed intelligentsia.
(Academia and intellect seem to be growing apart too in many cases in that bloated pseudo industry of mass higher education, but that's another story)
7 years later a weirdly dangerous novel bat coronavirus escapes in the only city in the world that boasts a laboratory doing experiments to make weirdly dangerous novel bat coronaviruses
At what point do we just accept the overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
@timspector
·
2h
Daily rates up again at over 3500 - main drivers are localised hotspots in W.Midlands NW and Scotland-affects age groups below 50 with big recent increase in kids - not in vaccinated groups. Thanks for logging with Zoe!
@MarkELindsay
·
21h
Please get vaccinated so we can end COVID twitter
Only a few PMs have been truly top intellectuals and academics, Brown and Wilson probably the only two postwar (though Hague would also have been had he won in 2001).
Wilson was rare in being an intellectual (a former Oxford don) while disguising it cleverly enough with a man of the people act to win elections
I'm reluctant to rerun the great 'how big was the Brexit protest' clash of 2019, but...
‘Also known as indirect evidence. Evidence that does not directly prove a fact in dispute, but allows the fact finder to draw a reasonable inference about the existence or non-existence of a fact based on the evidence. It is different from direct evidence, which establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact on its own. The law does not differentiate the weight a fact finder is to give to circumstantial or direct evidence; they are to be treated equally.’
Crucial last sentence. Circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct, observational evidence
Thankyou. I’m here all week providing cheerful news
There are no witnesses of the theft itself, but the evidence both of actus reus and mens rea is overwhelming. But each and every element of the evidence is open to other inferences.
Overwhelming does not mean incapable of rebuttal. There is no such circumstance. That is in the nature of empirical evidence.
(Edit: It's in The Noble Bachelor)
‘Most MSM reports didn’t “ignore” the lab leak theory, they actively crapped all over it for a over year while pretending to be objective out of a toxic mix of confirmation bias, source bias (their scientist sources lied to them), group think, TDS and general incompetence.’
https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1398650009789382659?s=21
TDS = Trump Derangement Syndrome. Has some similarities to Strasbourg Syndrome
So the exaggeration would be three orders of magnitude not the normal one.
More difficult question.
Was Jill Dando’s killing an assassination?
Do you think there is more risk for people having their brain screwed up by smoking drugs of unknown provenance that could be of any strength or breed, from criminal gangsters just in for a buck - or a regulated substance of known strength purchased from a legal supplier?
Its the same with alcohol, drinking high spirits screws you up much more than drinking some beer or wine.
presented evidence by Indie Sage
Hundreds of thousands is the scale of an Iraq War March, or a Countryside Alliance March.